Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, MR. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Private Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:

Scarborough Corporation Bill [Lords].

Bill to be read a Second time.

Humber Bridge Bill (by Order),

Consideration, as amended, deferred till To-morrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPIRE MARKETING FUND.

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if he will take steps to remove the limitation of the Empire Marketing Fund to marketing in the United Kingdom?

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): Following a recommendation of the Imperial Conference of 1930 on this subject, the estimate for the Empire Marketing Fund for the current financial year has been so framed as to remove this limitation.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOUTHERN RHODESIA (FORCED LABOUR CONVENTION).

Mr. WELLOCK: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if he has been notified as to whether the Government of Southern Rhodesia proposes to ratify the Convention on Forced Labour?

Mr. THOMAS: Inquiry is being made of the Government of Southern Rhodesia as to whether they are prepared to apply the provisions of the Convention in Southern Rhodesia.

Oral Answers to Questions — IMPERIAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE.

Mr. DAY: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether the date has now been settled when the Imperial Economic Conference will be held at Ottawa?

Mr. THOMAS: No, Sir.

Mr. DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when it is proposed to make the announcement?

Mr. THOMAS: It does not rest with us. The hon. Member must be aware that it rests entirely with the Canadian Government.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: Is it likely to be this year or next year?

HON. MEMBERS: Or some time, or never?

Mr. THOMAS: The hon. Member cannot have been present when I read the statement to the House.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Yes, I was here and heard it

Mr. THOMAS: If the hon. Member was present, he must have heard me state that Mr. Bennett had said not this year.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL (for Sir KINGSLEY WOOD): 1.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether, having regard to the postponement of the Ottawa Conference, he intends to make any immediate proposals for any measure of Imperial economic preference?

Mr. THOMAS: I think that the right hon. Gentleman cannot have read the announcements made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer last week, and by the Prime Minister yesterday, as to War Debt payments.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRISH GRANTS COMMITTEE.

Colonel GRETTON: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs
if, in view of the organised movement in the Irish Free State for the purpose of obtaining reinstatement of the Irish Grants Committee which was dissolved on 31st January, 1930, he will say if the present Government intend to re-establish the Irish Grants Committee now or at any future time?

Mr. THOMAS: My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, recently received, on my behalf, a deputation from a newly-formed Irish Loyalists Association, who presented a memorial urging the re-establishment of the Irish Grants Committee, with a view to the investigation of further claims for compensation. It was made clear by the late Government that the Irish Grants Committee, which completed its work in February, 1930, was intended to be final, and that there could be no question of instituting further machinery. The memorial presented by the Irish Loyalists Association has received careful consideration, but His Majesty's Government regret that they are unable to reverse the decision taken in the matter by their predecessors and reaffirmed by themselves.

Colonel GRETTON: Is that reply to be taken as final?

Mr. THOMAS: Absolutely.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

SHARES (SALE BEFORE ALLOTMENT).

Sir JOHN FERGUSON: 9.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the sale on the Stock Exchange before allotment of Woolworth shares issued for public subscription; and will he take steps to protect the private investor by making similar sales before allotment in future an offence against the Companies Act and the transactions non-enforceable in law?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. William Graham): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The hon. Member's suggestion has been noted.

Sir J. FERGUSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman request the committee of the Stock Exchange to see that this is not
repeated in future, as the matter is of great importance to many investors in this country?

Mr. GRAHAM: It is difficult to deal with this matter in an answer to a supplementary question. I think it hardly lies with them. It is due to certain factors outwith their control.

Sir J. FERGUSON: Could not the same practice be observed with regard to speculative securities, as with Government bonds, in which dealings are not allowed until the allotment has been made?

Mr. GRAHAM: I should require to look into that point.

Mr. SAMUEL: Will the right hon. Gentleman consult the associated Stock Exchanges in the North of England and get their opinions on this matter?

Mr. EDE: Is the right hon. Gentleman noting these things with a view to introducing at an early date some amendment of the Companies Act, to cover the weaknesses in working which have been disclosed?

Mr. GRAHAM: Yes, in reply to various questions I have told the House that all these suggestions are being noted, provided always it is understood that I am not definitely promising legislation at this stage.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Would the right hon. Gentleman at the same time keep his eye on Woolworth's, and the working conditions of the workers there?

COTTON INDUSTRY.

Mr. REMER: 10.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is yet in, a position to report any progress in his negotiations with the cotton industry?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: Replies are now being received from the various firms in the industry to the questionnaire issued by the joint committee of cotton trade organisations in connection with the investigation referred to in the reply given to the hon. Member on 16th June.

Mr. REMER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if he expects to be able to make a statement on this question?

Mr. GRAHAM: Yes, I have already promised that, when the Board of Trade Vote is taken in Supply.

Mr. REMER: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that, on the Board of Trade Vote it is impossible to refer to any question of legislation?

Mr. GRAHAM: That is perfectly true, but it will not preclude a very full statement as to the important administrative steps which have been taken.

COMPANIES ACT.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: 11.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether any public companies have, as at 25th June, still failed to comply with the provisions of Section 110 of the Companies Act, 1929?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: The number of cases outstanding at the date named was 31.

Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: Does the right hon. Gentleman contemplate taking any action with regard to those companies which have not complied with the law?

Mr. GRAHAM: Yes, those cases are all with the solicitor now, but I ought to say that according to my information they are all unimportant.

Major HARVEY: 13.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, when amending the Companies Act, he will consider introducing a Clause to provide that an auditor's certificate should state whether the dividends proposed in respect of the accounts certified were payable out of trading profits earned during the period covered by the certificate, and that if any part of the dividend had been taken from reserves the certificate should state the sum?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: The hon. and gallant Member's proposal has been noted for investigation when the question of amending the Companies Act is under consideration.

FOOD PRODUCTS, EXPORT (CHINA AND JAPAN).

Mr. R. S. YOUNG: 12.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the volume and value of export of home- canned food products to China and Japan for 1929 and 1930, respectively?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: So far as the items are separately recorded in the trade returns, the domestic exports of tinned, canned or bottled food products from the United Kingdom to China (excluding Hong Kong, Macao and leased territories), amounted during 1929 to 435 cwt., valued at £4,000 and during 1930 to 451 cwt. valued at £3,992. The corresponding figures of exports consigned to Japan (including Formosa and Japanese leased territories in China) were 96 cwt. valued at £717 and 108 cwt. valued at £829 respectively.

BALANCE OF TRADE.

Mr. WHITE: 15.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if any estimate has been framed of Britain's balance of trade for the first five months of the present year; and, if so, how it com pares with the corresponding estimates for the years 1929 and 1930, respectively?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: An estimate of the balance of trade is only made annually.

BROMINE (IMPORT).

Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: 16.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that bromine is now being landed in Great Britain from the Dead Sea Company; and to what country this essential ingredient for chemical warfare is being re-exported?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: During the first five months of this year the imports from Palestine of bromine and bromides (which are not recorded separately from each other) amounted to 491 cwts. I am unable to say whether these imports came from the Dead Sea Company or to which countries all or part may have been re-exported.

Sir A. KNOX: Is the export of these substances only permitted under licence?

Mr. GRAHAM: I think not, but I should require to look into the matter.

GLOVE, CUTLERY AND GAS MANTLE INDUSTRIES.

Mr. LOUIS SMITH: 17.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what has been the course of employment in the glove, cultery and gas mantle industries for each quarter since 1st January, 1930?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: As the answer involves a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. SMITH: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House whether the figures have gone down considerably since the date mentioned in the question?

Mr. GRAHAM: There is a reduction, but I would ask the House to guard against the assumption that that is necessarily due to the disappearance of the Duties.

Mr. SMITH: If these figures have gone down seriously, does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that the withdrawal

Average numbers of workpeople employed.


——
Glove-making.
Gas Mantles.



Leather Gloves.
Fabric Gloves.


1930—Fourth quarter
…
…
7,974
763
1,354


1931—First quarter
…
…
6,466
506
1,317

Notes.—The particulars in respect of Gloves have been furnished by the Joint Industrial Council for the Glove-making Industry and are stated to relate to firms which, in 1924, employed in the Leather Glove Industry about 88 per cent. of the cutters and in the Fabric Glove Industry about 82 per cent. of the cutters.

The figures for the Gas Mantle Industry, supplied by the Trade Association concerned, relate to the average weekly number of persons employed by firms which are claimed to represent about 95 per cent. of the output of the whole industry.

SCOTTISH JUTE INDUSTRY.

Mr. MARCUS: 22.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will consider The advisability of the preparation of a detailed survey of the Scottish jute industry on lines similar to the survey recently announced in relation to Lancashire?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given on 12th May to my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Riley), of which I am sending him a copy.

IMPORT PROHIBITIONS.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: 23.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether there are any, and, if so, what, treaties or agreements with foreign Powers which would prevent this country from pro hibiting the importation of commodities or manufactures which are dumped on The British market at prices lower than The cost of production in this country,

of these Duties has increased the load on the Exchequer and on the Unemployment Fund; and will he now consider their reinstatement?

Following is the answer:

As regards the first three quarters of 1930, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 10th February, 1931, to the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Wight (Captain Macdonald). The corresponding figures for the fourth quarter of 1930 and the first quarter of 1931 are shown in the following statement. Figures in respect of the cutlery industry are not yet available for any period subsequent to the second quarter of 1930.

and in many cases considerably less than the prices at which they are sold in the country of origin; and, if so, will he give particulars of any such treaties or agreements?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: His Majesty's Government are precluded by the Anglo-German Commercial Treaty of 1924 and the International Convention for the Abolition of Import and Export prohibitions and restrictions from imposing such a prohibition on the goods of Germany and of five other countries, namely, the United States of America, Denmark, Japan, the Netherlands and Norway. Provisions similar to those in the International Convention are also contained in the Anglo-Persian Tariff Autonomy Treaty which, though not yet ratified, is provisionally in force. So long as any of these instruments remain in operation no such prohibition could, of course, be applied to any other
countries entitled by treaty to most-favoured-nation treatment in this respect.

Sir W. DAVISON: In view of the likelihood of a change to a Government pledged to prohibit dumping, could not the right hon. Gentleman give provisional notice as to the determination of this treaty?

Mr. GRAHAM: I could not promise to give any notice of that kind, because I am not prepared to contemplate so dangerous a likelihood.

Sir PHILIP CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Is is not the case that there is nothing in any of the instruments to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred, which prevents him imposing any duty if he likes, to-day?

Mr. GRAHAM: If the right hon. Gentleman refers to a tariff at large, then of course that is not inconsistent with treaty obligations, but I make no comment on the merits of such a proposal.

Mr. THORNE: Has the right hon. Gentleman been able to give a scientific definition of what is meant by "dumping"?

Following is the statement:


STATEMENT showing the Quantities and Declared "Values of Manufactured Fuel imported into the United Kingdom during each of the years 1929 and 1930, distinguishing the countries whence consigned.


Countries whence Consigned.
1929.
1930.



Quantity.
Declared Value.
Quantity.
Declared Value.



Tons.
£
Tons.
£


Germany
…
179
1,589
91
1,139


Netherlands
…
64
642
36
728


Belgium
…
14
17
12
15


France
…
163
814
45
435


Switzerland
…
99
12,921
42
6,320


Italy
…
16
32
—
—


United States of America
…
—
13
—
4


Irish Free State
…
38
91
19
62


Total
…
573
16,119
245
8,703

NOTE. —The figures for 1930 are provisional.

TARIFF TRUCE.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL (for Sir K. WOOD): 7.
asked the President of the Board

Mr. GRAHAM: No, that is a matter of elastic definition.

MANUFACTURED FUEL (IMPORT).

Colonel GRETTON: 24.
asked the President of the Board of Trade, in view of the variations in the import price of manufactured fuel from Germany, Holland, Belgium, and other countries not specifically mentioned, what is the technical description and the amounts of the several kinds of manufactured fuels imported from these countries, respectively, and which are the foreign countries not specifically mentioned in the trade returns?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement showing the quantity and value of manufactured fuel imported into the United Kingdom, distinguishing the countries whence this commodity was consigned. I regret that information is not available showing separate particulars of the various technical descriptions of manufactured fuel included in these imports.

Colonel GRETTON: Which of the other countries are grouped together and not mentioned specifically?

Mr. GRAHAM: I should require notice of that.

of Trade whether he can state the decision of the Economic Committee of the League of Nations with reference to the
convocation of a conference to effect the entry into force of the commercial convention of 28th March, 1930?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I understand that the Committee came to the conclusion that the time was not yet ripe for the convocation of such a conference, but that a new situation which might make it possible to re-consider the question would arise if the negotiations initiated by this country with a view to effecting a lowering of Customs Tariffs achieved some tangible result.

Mr. SAMUEL: In view of the fact that more than a year has elapsed since the right hon. Gentleman made the proposals for a Tariff Truce, will he now tell the House what benefit has accrued from them to this country?

Mr. GRAHAM: These are necessarily very long negotiations, but I am still hopeful that they will achieve results.

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: Is it not The case that, although the negotiations are very long, the benefits are very short?

GERMANY AND RUMANIA.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL (for Sir K. WOOD): 14.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give the House any information concerning a trade agreement between Germany and Rumania; and whether there is any provision made for preferential treatment to Rumanian agrarian products by Germany?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I understand that the commercial treaty between Germany and Rumania has not yet been signed, but that it is proposed to make provision for preferential treatment in Germany of Rumanian barley and maize, and for reductions in the Rumanian tariff on certain industrial products. These latter will be extended to similar goods of other foreign countries which, like the United Kingdom, have most-favoured-nation rights in Rumania. Full details of this treaty are not yet available, but particulars will be published in the Board of Trade Journal when received.

Mr. SAMUEL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these most-favoured-nation Clauses are perfectly useless to us?

Mr. GRAHAM: Oh, no; on the contrary, they are of the highest possible use to us.

Mr. SAMUEL: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the British Chamber of Commerce in Paris has already stated that these Clauses are of no use to us?

Mr. GRAHAM: I have already replied to my hon. Friend on that point, and have shown that that statement was based on what I regard as a complete misconception of the conditions.

Mr. SAMUEL: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that we do not agree with him?

MANUFACTURED GOODS (EXPORTS).

Sir ASSHETON POWNALL (for Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLAND): 19.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the percentage decrease in volume of British manufactured exports for the first five months of 1931 as compared with the same period in 1929; and the corresponding figures or those for the latest period available for Germany and France?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: Figures relating to changes in the volume of United Kingdom trade are calculated in respect of quarterly periods only, the latest figures being those furnished to the right hon. Gentleman on the 21st April last. Eliminating the effect of price changes, the volume of manufactured goods exported from Germany, including reparation deliveries, was 12.8 per cent. less in the first five months of 1931 than in the corresponding period of 1929. Similar information in respect of exports from France is not available.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

SEAMEN.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 25.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has been able to take further steps to induce British ship owners to employ a larger proportion of white British seamen in vessels trading from home ports in view of the unemployment among British-born seamen in this country?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: As has been indicated in replies to previous questions
on this subject, while I am naturally anxious to see British seamen employed, the matter is not one in which the Board of Trade can usefully intervene.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is The right hon. Gentleman watching the working of the new regulations with the aim of preventing these foreigners coming here and taking jobs on ships?

Mr. GRAHAM: I think that I gave my hon. and gallant Friend some information on that point some time ago, but we are working under very definite limits in a matter of this kind so far as the Board of Trade is concerned.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: Has the right hon. Gentleman received any representations from the Seamen's Union on this matter?

Mr. GRAHAM: Yes, from time to time, but not, so far as I remember, in very recent weeks.

JUTE INDUSTRY, DUNDEE.

Mr. MARCUS: 58.
asked the Minister of Labour if her attention has been drawn to the unemployment in the jute industry in Dundee; and what steps she proposes to take to improve the situation?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Miss Bondfield): I am aware of the position as regards unemployment in Dundee. The Minister of Transport and the Unemployment Grants Committee have approved for grant 15 schemes of roads, docks and other public works, the estimated cost of which is about £493,000.

QUESTIONS (LORD PRIVY SEAL).

Sir A. POWNALL (for Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND): 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will arrange that the Lord Privy Seal should answer questions at an early stage during question time on one day of the week, in order that Members wishing for information on questions of unemployment shall be sure of obtaining answers.

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): All questions properly addressed to and answered by the Lord Privy Seal during the last three months have been reached, and I do not, therefore, think that any special arrangements are called for. I would remind the right
hon. Gentleman that only questions relating to general unemployment policy and affecting a number of Departments should be addressed to the Lord Privy Seal.

Captain CROOKSHANK: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with the way the Lord Privy Seal is doing the job?

The PRIME MINISTER: Perfectly.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

FOOD SUPPLIES.

Mr. ROSBOTHAM: 26.
asked the Secretary of State for War what steps have been taken by his Department to purchase the necessary supply of home-cured bacon for the Army from home sources, and with what result?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. T. Shaw): I can assure my bon. Friend that very full consideration has been given to the question of obtaining a supply of home-produced bacon for the Army, but unfortunately up to the present, owing to cost and other factors, it has not been possible to obtain a supply.

Mr. R. S. YOUNG: Does the right hon. Gentleman use Danish bacon?

Mr. SHAW: I cannot say offhand what the latest contract has been for. I can say, however, that as soon as we get an organised supply of a standardised product in this country, it will receive very sympathetic consideration at the War Office.

Mr. YOUNG: Is it not a fact that there is some kind of agreement between the British and Danish bacon curers, and can he be sure that if he asks for British bacon he will get British bacon?

Mr. SHAW: I have no information on that point, but I have answered the question.

Mr. LEIF JONES: Will the right hon. Gentleman make sure that he gets good bacon.

Mr. SHAW: It is my intention to see that the troops are supplied with good food.

Mr. REMER: What are the other factors to which the right hon. Gentleman referred?

Mr. SHAW: I have already mentioned that there is no organised supply of a standardised product in this country.

Mr. SMITHERS: 27.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that tinned fruit is being supplied to His Majesty's Forces with names suggesting British origin, but which is, in fact, of foreign origin; and what steps he is prepared to take to ensure that only British or Empire tinned fruits are supplied to the Forces in the future?

Mr. SHAW: Tinned fruit does not form part of the soldier's ration, and is purchased by the War Office only to meet the requirements of the Air Force overseas and of hospitals at home. It is the exception for foreign fruit to be purchased, and approximately 94 per cent. of the purchases made during the past 12 months was the product either of the United Kingdom or some other part of the Empire. I understand that foreign tinned fruit is always so labelled. As regards tinned fruit sold to the soldier by the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes, I am informed that it is the policy of the corporation to confine its purchases to products of the United Kingdom or other parts of the Empire wherever possible. Foreign fruit is obtained only to meet small occasional demands from customers.

Mr. SMITHERS: With reference to that part of the right hon. Gentleman's answer in which he said that tins of foreign fruit were labelled, may I ask him if he is aware that many of these labels bear some British name, and that the foreign origin is indicated in quite small letters? Will he examine some of them?

Mr. SHAW: I have told the hon. Member that these fruits are dealt with by the Navy, Army and Air Force Institutes. I do not know whether the statement that he makes is correct or not; I have no first-hand knowledge of that fact; but I am informed that these cans are definitely labelled with an indication that they are foreign products.

Mr. SMITHERS: In very small letters.

Major COLVILLE: Does that apply to jam made from pulp?

SUMMER CAMPS (WAR DEPARTMENT PROPERTY).

Commander SOUTHBY: 28.
asked the Secretary of State for War what replies have been received from the various military commands to the recently issued circular regarding the use of Government property or stores by organisations promoting summer camps; whether any applications for such use have been received from any organisations connected, either directly or indirectly, with any political party; and if he will take the necessary steps to ensure that no Government property is either loaned or leased to or used by any such organisation?

Mr. SHAW: A letter was received from the secretary of the Socialist Summer School Association asking if any vacant barracks, preferably near the coast, were available, together with bedding, crockery, etc., at an inclusive rental, for the purpose of running a summer school. After reference to the Admiralty, who had no vacant accommodation, the application was referred to the three Commands possessing coastal barrack accommodation, who in each case informed the applicant that no accommodation was available. No other applications of this nature have been received lately from organisations connected with any political party. On the general question, it has not been customary to refuse temporary letting of War Department property on the ground of political connections.

Commander SOUTHBY: Would the right hon. Gentleman specifically answer the last part of my question?

Mr. SHAW: I have no intention of altering the regulations which have existed for some time, that, if the Territorial Army have vacant land and buildings, they shall let them, if possible, at a rental in order to get as much money from them as they can.

BANDS (PRIVATE ENGAGEMENTS).

Mr. DAY: 30.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether any modifications have been made in the regulations during the previous 12 months under which military bands are allowed to accept private engagements?

Mr. SHAW: No, Sir.

Mr. DAY: Have these regulations been modified or strengthened?

Mr. SHAW: They have been modified, but not during the last 12 months?

TERRITORIAL ARTILLERY (TRAINING).

Commander SOUTHBY (for Mr. BEAUMONT): 29.
asked the Secretary of State for War whether it is his policy always to send Territorial artillery units to the same camps to practise shooting; and whether he has considered the advantages of training that would accrue from varying the camps to which each individual unit is sent from year to year, thus giving each unit a chance of manoeuvring over different country and under different conditions?

Mr. SHAW: Artillery units of the Territorial Army undergo shooting training at camp every other year, and considerations of expense often confine them to the nearest camp. But, in the intervening years, such units go to ordinary training camps, and it is seldom that a unit goes to the same training camp twice in succession.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

MOTOR TRAFFIC, PARTICK.

Mr. McKINLAY: 31.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland in view of the numerous accidents caused by motor omnibuses speeding on Dumbarton Road, Partick, he will take steps to tighten the police patrol in that area?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. William Adamson): I am informed that the road in question is well policed with officers on point duty and on beat duty, as well as by cycle and motor patrols, and that everything possible is done by the police to prevent speeding or reckless driving. The total number of accidents occurring in the road in which motor omnibuses were involved up to 26th June in the present year was nine less than the number in the first six months of 1930. I am keeping in touch with the authorities in regard to this matter.

Mr. SKELTON: What meaning does the right hon. Gentleman attach to the phrase "tighten the police patrol"?

Captain Sir WILLIAM BRASS: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that it is merely the speed which is dangerous on this road?

Mr. ADAMSON: I have already said that the police are keeping a close eye on the speed.

FEVER HOSPITAL, SHIELDHALL.

Mr. McKINLAY: 32.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that patients from the Partick district of Glasgow, until recently inmates of Shieldhall Fever Hospital, have complained of the food supplied and that the wards are infested with vermin; and what steps he proposes to take to have the matter rectified?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Westwood): I have no knowledge of complaints by patients who have recently been in Shieldhall Infectious Diseases Hospital in regard to the food supplied, which is drawn from the same sources as that supplied to other institutions under the Public Health Department of Glasgow. As regards infestation of the wards with vermin, I am informed that certain portions of the hospital have for some time been invaded by email red ants, which established themselves in the kitchen and along the duets of certain of the wards. Substantial repairs to the kitchen have resulted in their disappearance from that area, but up till now efforts to eradicate them from the ducts of the wards have not been so successful. It is hoped, however, that further improvement will be effected by measures which are being taken under the direction of a medical officer who has had special experience in connection with insect pests.

Mr. McKINLAY: Is my hon. Friend aware that the superintendent has since reported that the only method of dealing with this hospital is total demolition? I did not question the source of the food supply, but the quantity and quality of the food supplied to the patients.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Seeing that these are red ants, may I ask if they come from Russia?

Mr. WESTWOOD: We have no indication as to where they came from, but the medical officer who is responsible for their eradication is Dr. Gunn, and he will do his best to eradicate them.

ST. KILDA.

Mr. RAMSAY: 34.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has any in formation regarding the raiding of the island of St. Kilda by a foreign trawler; and whether any looting of, and damage to, property has taken place?

Mr. W. ADAMSON: I have no official information regarding this matter, and, as the hon. Member knows, the island is privately owned.

Mr. RAMSAY: When the right hon. Gentleman is making inquiries, will he take note of the next sailing of the tourist steamer, which I believe is on 9th July, and get into communication by wireless in order to ascertain the facts 7

Mr. ADAMSON: I shall be pleased to make inquiries.

BANKRUPTCIES.

Mr. MARCUS: 35.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many persons have become bankrupt in Scotland in the three years ended 31st May, 1928, and in The three years ended 31st May, 1931

Mr. W. ADAMSON: The number of bankruptcies awarded in Scotland for the three years ended 31st May, 1928, was 806, representing 870 individual bankrupts. For the three years ended 31st May, 1931, the number shows a reduction, the figures being 770, representing 847 individual bankrupts.

Mr. McSHANE: Can the right hon. Gentleman state whether any of those bankrupts in Scotland are Scotsmen?

RIVER CART (PURIFICATION).

Mr. JAMES WELSH: 37.
(Paisley)
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made with the scheme for the purification of the River Cart by the Paisley Town Council; the estimated cost of the work; and if he is satisfied that every effort is being made to begin the work soon?

Mr. W. ADAMSON: I am informed that on 9th June Paisley Town Council approved of proceeding with a scheme for the relief of unemployment involving the construction of sewage purification works at an estimated cost of £400,000. Plans are being prepared and application for assistance will shortly be made to the Unemployment Grants Committee.
Negotiations are taking place for the acquisition of the necessary land. I am also informed that negotiations have been opened by the town council with the county council of Renfrew regarding the reception and treatment of sewage from part of the county adjoining the burgh. As regards the last part of the question, I may say that so far as the approval of Departments under my jurisdiction is concerned, no delay will occur in dealing with any application that may be made by the local authority.

SCHOOL LEAVING CERTIFICATES.

Mr. RAMSAY (for Mr. SCOTT): 33.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the records of the 3,055 pupils who obtained leaving certificates have been or will be examined; and the number of pupils who obtained two passes on the higher grade (of which one is English) and two on the lower grade (sufficient to qualify for university entrance)?

Mr. WESTWOOD: For the purpose of the award of the leaving certificate it is essential that the records referred to in the first part of the question should be examined, and they are so examined. To ascertain the figure asked for in the second part of the question would involve a special and laborious investigation, which would not in the opinion of my right hon. Friend serve any useful purpose. Further, as I explained in reply to the hon. Member's question of the 18th June, 1931, specification of the subjects necessary for university entrance is a matter that rests with the authorities of the university which it is desired to enter.

HOUSING SCHEMES, GLASGOW.

Mr. McSHANE (for Mr. McGOVERN): 36.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of acres of ground purchased by the Glasgow Corporation, since 1914, for housing schemes; the amounts paid; the names of each owner of land sold; and the districts where the sites are?

Mr. WESTWOOD: I am making inquiries, and will communicate with my hon. Friend as soon as possible.

SHALE OIL INDUSTRY.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 43.
asked the Secretary for Mines what is the present position with regard to the
Scottish shale mines; and whether the production of oil from the shale is continuing?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Shinwell): I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the replies given on the 23rd and 26th June to the hon. and gallant Members for Midlothian, North (Major Colville) and Abingdon (Major Glyn) respectively. There has up to the present been no reduction in the operations of the shale industry.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I have an answer to the last part of my question? Is the shale used for the production of oil?

Mr. SHINWELL: Yes, that is what I said.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

OVERTIME WORKING (INSPECTION).

Mr. WINTERTON: 39.
asked the Secretary of Mines whether, in view of the cases of overtime working in coal mines which have been brought to his notice, he will issue an instruction to his in spectors that periodical inspection of coal mines must be made intermittently during the night shifts?

Mr. SHINWELL: It is already the practice for special inspections to be made during the night shift in cases where the circumstances are such as to require it, but as regards overtime working, sufficient evidence is usually available without this, from the register kept at the mine and from other sources.

HOURS OF WORK.

Mr. HERRIOTTS: 40.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he will make a statement with regard to the results of The recent negotiations at Geneva on the hours to be worked in the coal mines of Europe; and whether he will publish the reports as a White Paper?

Mr. SHINWELL: The International Labour Conference at Geneva adopted by 81 votes to two, with the employers' delegates abstaining from voting, a Convention limiting the daily hours of work in coal and lignite mines. The convention provides for a daily maximum of seven and three-quarters hours hank to bank, which is equivalent to seven and a-quarter hours under the British method
of calculation, with special provisions in regard to lignite mining. The report of the British Government delegates to the Minister of Labour will be published as a White Paper in the usual way.

Mr. HERRIOTTS: Will the hon. Gentleman see that this information is made public as speedily as possible, in view of the present negotiations?

Mr. SHINWELL: I understand that the information is being made public.

Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: 42.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether he will now make a further statement as to the Government's proposals in relation to hours of labour in the coal-mining industry?

Mr. SHINWELL: Negotiations are still proceeding.

Major BEAUMONT THOMAS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that he has only a week left to complete negotiations which have been proceeding all these months?

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Would the hon. Gentleman kindly repeat his answer? I could not hear it.

Mr. SHINWELL: I said that negotiations are still proceeding.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Will the hon. Member state what is the position in regard to Scotland, where the mine-owners and the miners are in agreement?

Mr. SHINWELL: The position in Scotland is that it is subject to negotiations.

LANARKSHIRE.

Miss LEE: 41.
asked the Secretary for Mines if he can give any information regarding the recent stoppage of seven pits, employing 2,000 men, in the Shotts area of Lanarkshire?

Mr. SHINWELL: I have made inquiries, and I understand that some of the pits of the Shotts Iron Company are working short time. It is clear that for Scotland as a whole the permitted output for the June quarter is considerably in excess of demand, and that it has been possible during the quarter to buy large quantities of quota tonnage at nominal prices. The Shotts Iron Company has purchased additional quota
tonnage and has also secured an increased standard tonnage on appeal to arbitration. From such figures as I have been able to obtain it would appear that, by these means, the undertaking has obtained a permitted output approximating to the tonnage claimed. It would, therefore, be fair to conclude that the short time working in this case is in the main due to want of trade.

Miss LEE: Is the Secretary for Mines aware that this company made a statement that what has happened was due to the working of the quota system? If we understand from his reply that that is not so, is it possible to take any action to deal with companies that know the reasons for stoppages and yet make such unwarranted statements?

Mr. SHINWELL: I am aware that almost everything that happens in the coal industry is blamed on to the quota, but those who attribute them to the quota are quite misinformed. As regards the latter part of the supplementary question, I have no power to do what the hon. Lady asks.

Sir W. BRASS: Does the hon. Gentleman deny that this has anything to do with the quota?

Mr. SHINWELL: I have already said that is has nothing to do with the quota system, but is a consequence of bad trade.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Will the Minister say definitely whether these 2,000 men have been thrown out as a result of the quota or not?

Mr. SHINWELL: I have already said it has nothing to do with the quota. If hon. Members will compare the figures of the standard tonnage obtained from the Scottish pits with the demand, they will see at once that the quota has nothing to do with it.

Mr. E. BROWN: Does not the Minister agree that if there had been no such system this company might have had an assured market and have been able to sell much more of their tonnage?

COAL TAR PRODUCTS.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 44.
asked the Secretary for Mines what is the present monthly production of high-
temperature and low-temperature coal tar, respectively; and what proportions of these products are being refined into motor spirit and other liquid fuels?

Mr. SHINWELL: Recent official statistics are not available, but from estimates furnished to the Mines Department it appears that during each of the past two or three years from 320,000 to 350,000 tons of creosote oils were obtained by the distillation of coal tar, and approximately 3,000,000 gallons of benzol. It is not known what proportion of the creosote oils were used for fuel purposes. In addition to these products, 28,000,000 to 30,000,000 gallons of benzol were obtained from the gas generated at coke ovens and gas works. Separate particulars are not available for high and low temperature processes, but in the present state of development of low temperature carbonisation, the quantity of oil fuels produced by such processes cannot be large in proportion to the country's consumption.

CLIPSTONE COLLIERY.

Mr. WINTERT0N (for Mr. CHARLES BROWN): 38.
asked the Secretary for Mines if he will inquire and state what was the length of the shifts of boys employed as tub-markers working underground on conveyor faces at Clipstone Colliery, Notts, during the last week in May and the first two weeks of June, 1931?

Mr. SHINWELL: The normal length of the shift of the boys in question is 7½ hours, and this was the period worked in the last week of May and the first week in June, except that during the two weeks two boys each worked overtime on one day.

Mr. WINTERTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the figures he has given in connection with this case are open to serious challenge? Are they extracted from the colliery log book?

Mr. SHINWELL: If the hon. Member challenges the figures, perhaps he will supply me with the information.

Mr. LAWTHER: Had the local workmen's inspectors an opportunity of examining the registers at this colliery?

Mr. SHINWELL: I cannot say whether there are workmen's inspectors in that area.

Mr. LAWTHER: If there are, will they be given an opportunity and, if there are not, will the hon. Gentleman inquire why there are not?

Mr. SHINWELL: Where workmen's inspectors have been appointed, they cannot be excluded from the pits. If no workmen's inspectors are appointed, the matter is not within my jurisdiction. It is a matter for the men's organisation.

Oral Answers to Questions — REPARATIONS AND INTER-GOVERNMENTAL DEBTS.

Mr. LAMBERT: 46.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the items comprised in the estimated loss of £11,000,000 to the British Treasury through the suspension of War debt payments?

Mr. MAITLAND: 47.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will issue a White Paper showing the direct effect upon the national finances of this country and of other countries concerned if President Hoover's proposal relating to reparation and inter-Governmental debts is put into operation, and the War debt payments due to the United Kingdom by the Dominions are also postponed for a period of 12 months?

Captain PETER MACDONALD: 48.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the precise nature of the international liabilities in the current financial year of all debtor countries which would be affected by the proposals of the President of the United States for temporary suspension of payments?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Philip Snowden): I cannot add anything to the statement which I made yesterday in reply to the right hon. Member for the Edgbaston Division (Mr. Chamberlain).

Mr. LAMBERT: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to tell us what countries will be relieved and what Dominions will be relieved through the suspension of these payments?

Mr. SNOWDEN: If the right hon. Gentleman will refer to the answer which I gave yesterday, he will find that information.

Mr. LAMBERT: May I respectfully ask my right hon. Friend—or the right hon. Gentleman—whether his statement published yesterday contained the information for which I have now asked?

Mr. SNOWDEN: Yes. The only part of the three questions to which I have not given a direct answer, perhaps, is the point dealing with how other countries will be affected. It is quite impossible to give a reply to that question until we see the form in which the plan finally emerges.

Mr. THORNE: If the right hon. Gentleman is considering Question 47, will he at the same time take into consideration the tremendous jump in securities that has happened since 20th June?

Mr. MAITLAND: If the right hon. Gentleman has any information regarding the effect of President Hoover's offer upon other countries which was not covered in the statement made yesterday, will he consider publishing that information at the earliest possible moment?

Mr. SNOWDEN: The hon. Member cannot have heard what I said just now, that it is quite impossible to give any information as to the effect on other countries until we see the form in which the plan finally emerges. Replying to my hon. Friend behind me, for other reasons I have taken note of what has happened with satisfaction.

Mr. WISE: Is not this matter of such complication and importance that it cannot possibly be elucidated by question and answer, and in the circumstances will not the Government give an opportunity for discussion in the House, so that the whole matter can be gone into?

Mr. SNOWDEN: No, Sir, I think it would be very inadvisable in the present state of the negotiations for the matter to be discussed in the House.

Mr. WISE: Will the Chancellor say why this matter should be discussed in the French Parliament and in other Parliaments and not here?

Mr. SNOWDEN: I think the contrast between the two is sufficient reason why we should not follow them.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (CLERICAL AND NON-CLERICAL WORKERS, WAGES).

Mr. BROCKWAY: 52.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he can state the lowest wage paid to clerical and non-clerical workers employed by the various departments of State in London and the provinces, respectively, including those in the post service and the Exchanges of the Ministry of Labour?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence): The information collected as the result of my hon. Friend's previous question of the 17th June is on the basis of industrial and non-industrial staffs, the latter including both clerical and non-clerical workers. As the reply involves a table of figures, I will, with the permission of my hon. Friend, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. BROCKWAY: Is it not a fact that the wages are now below 37s. 6d. in many eases, and, if so, will the hon. Gentleman postpone any further reductions until the Government have had time to consider the forthcoming Report of the Royal Commission?

Mr. PETHICK - LAWRENCE: I thought I had answered that question several times in the House. The Report

——
Lowest wages paid to any adult employee for a full working week.


Non-industrial.
Industrial.


London.
Provinces.
London.
Provinces.


Men.
Women.
Men.
Women.
Men.
Women.
Men.
Women.



Per week.
Per week.
Per week.
Per week.
Per week.
Per week.
Per week.
Per week.



s.
d.
s.
d.
s.
d.
s.
d.
s.
d.
s.
d.
s.
d.
s.
d.


Post Office
41
1(a)
34
6
32
7(d)
31
6
46
6(f)
30
0
43
5(h)
26
0


Ministry of Labour (Exchanges).
45
0(b)
34
2
38
9(e)
27
11
—
—
—
—


All other Departments.
40
4 (c)
26
0
32
7
24
5
38
9(g)
26
0
24
11 (i)
21
0


(a) Rising to 68s. 1d. per week plus free uniform and medical attendance.


(b) Rising to 52s. 9d. per week plus free uniform.


(c) Rising to 50s. 4d. per week.


(d) Rising to 56s. 10d. per week plus free uniform and medical attendance.


(e) Rising to 41s. lid. per week plus free uniform.


(f) Minimum of a wages range rising to 49s. 8d. per week.


(g) Rising to 54s. 3d. per week.


(h) Minimum of a wages range rising to 46s. 6d. per week.


(i) Excluding emoluments in kind to the value of about 3a. per week.

of the Royal Commission is expected next month, and any fall in the bonus does not normally take effect, but should there be a fall, according to the regulations it must be considered before the beginning of September, and therefore there will be plenty of time to consider the Report of the Royal Commission before further changes in the bonus take place.

Mr. E. BROWN: Is the Financial Secretary aware that hon. Members are receiving letters on this subject?

Mr. BROCKWAY: May I ask whether it is not merely a matter of the Report being published, but is a matter of a decision being reached upon that Report; and will a decision be reached in time for this House to give an expression of opinion on the Report before the reductions come into force?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Quite clearly, until the Report is in the hands of my right hon. Friend, I cannot announce a decision upon a hypothetical question.

Mr. BECKETT: Can the hon. Gentleman say how many are paid under 37s. 6d.?

Following is the Table:

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

RAW COTTON.

Mr. REMER: 54.
asked the Secretary of State for India how many bales of raw cotton grown in India were used by Indian cotton mills in 1913, 1928, 1929, and 1930, respectively?

The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Wedgwood Benn): I am circulating the reply, as it contains a number of figures.

Mr. REMER: As my question asks for only four figures, could the right hon. Gentleman not give them now?

Mr. BENN: I am entirely in your hands, Mr. Speaker, and if the hon. Member desires me to read out may reply, I will do so.

Mr. REMER: There are only four figures in the answer which I require.

Mr. BENN: I am quite willing to read the answer which is as follows:
Number of bales (400 lbs. each) of raw cotton grown in India and used in Indian cotton mills:
For the year ending:


31st August, 1913
…
1,805,000


31st August, 1914
…
1,816,000


31st August, 1928
…
1,771,000


31st August, 1929
…
1,992,000


31 St August, 1930
…
2,373,000


I regret that the figures for the calendar years are not available.

Mr. REMER: 55.
asked the Secretary of State for India how many bales of raw cotton were imported into India in 1913, 1928, 1929, and 1930, respectively?

Mr. BENN: I am circulating the figures for which the hon. Member asks.

Mr. REMER: There are only four-figures asked for in this question, and why cannot the Secretary of State read the answer?

Mr. BENN: The answer is as follows:

Bales (400 lbs.) of cotton imported into India during calendar years.


1913
…
…
…
…
29,671


1928
…
…
…
…
168,834


1929
…
…
…
…
131,521


1930
…
…
…
…
207,530

CIV1L AVIATION.

Major MACKENZIE WOOD (for Mr. MANDER): 53.
asked the Secretary of State for India if he has any statement to make with reference to the future of civil aviation in India and the effect of the anounced economies on the service of Imperial Airways, Limited?

Mr. BENN: I have nothing to add to the statement I made yesterday in reply to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy).

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY (SICK-BERTH STAFF LEAVE).

Mr. HORE - BELISHA: 62.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what additional leave has been granted to the sick-berth staff at Stonehouse to compensate them for the extra duty entailed by long leave last Christmas?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Ammon): As stated in reply to the question of the hon. Member for North Portsmouth (Sir B. Falle) on Wednesday last [OFFICIAL REPORT, column 423], this matter is being inquired into.

Oral Answers to Questions — MR. SOERMUS.

Sir BASIL PETO: 63.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that Soermus, the Communist violinist, is in this country; and on what grounds has he been readmitted in view of the fact that he was previously deported for subversive propaganda?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Short): Yes, Sir. The deportation order made against Soermus was revoked in January, 1924, and, since that date he has been free to visit this country if he could get leave to land at the port. Such leave has been granted him from time to time both under the previous and the present Government. In March last, after careful consideration of all the circumstances, my right hon. Friend decided to cancel the condition attached to his leave to land on the latest occasion.

Sir B. PETO: Has the Horne Office any evidence that the activities of this gentle-
man will be different from what they were when he was deported from this country?

Mr. SHORT: My right hon. Friend acts within the discretion imposed upon him by the Statute, and I am afraid that I cannot go further than that.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is this great country of ours afraid of one man with a violin?

Mr. BROCKWAY: Has the Home Office any information to corroborate the statement made in this House that M. Soermus is a Communist?

Mr. SHORT: I cannot add anything to the answer which I have already given.

Oral Answers to Questions — MAURITIUS (WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION).

Mr. McSHANE: 64.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies the reasons why, in Mauritius, the Workmen's Accident Compensation Act, although it has received the Royal Assent, has not yet been put into operation?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Dr. Drummond Shiels): The position as regards the Workmen's Compensation Bill an Mauritius is that its consideration was deferred during the final session of the last Council of Government for various local reasons. The Bill was reintroduced at the opening of the new Council in May, and is now awaiting its Second Reading the discussion on which was expected to take place to-day.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL BOTANIC GARDENS.

Mr. DAY: 65.
asked the First Commissioner of Works on about what date, and under what conditions, the Royal Botanic Gardens in Regent's Park will be opened and made public as a recreation park to the public?

Mr. PALING (Lord of the Treasury): The lease of the Royal Botanic Society expires on 5th April next. As soon as practicable after that date, as my right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works has already stated, the gardens will become part of Regent's Park for the free use of the public.

Mr. DAY: Can my hen. Friend say whether any precautions are being taken for the preservation of rare plants?

Mr. PALING: Perhaps my hon. Friend will put that question down.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPIRE SETTLEMENT (REPATRIATION).

Mr. McSHANE (for Mr. McGOVERN): 6.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if he can make any provision for the return to this country of emigrants an our Dominions who are unemployed and destitute?

Mr. THOMAS: I have every sympathy with migrants from this country who may be in difficulties in the Dominions, but I am afraid that it is not possible to provide return passages in such cases.

Mr. McSHANE: Has the right hon. Gentleman the fullest confidence in the immigration authorities there; is he aware that a large number of decent young men are now tramping the roads and can get no relief anywhere; and will he not, in the special circumstances, do what he can to get as many as possible of these men deported back here as soon as possible?

Mr. THOMAS: I am aware of the facts stated by my hon. Friend; I have had many cases; but whether it would be wise or desirable for me to provide merely return passages is very debateable.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHIPBUILDING (STATISTICS).

Sir A. POWNALL (for Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND): 20.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the tonnage of British ships laid down in the first quarter of 1929 and of 1931, and the corresponding figures for the tonnage laid down in all other countries?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: According to the returns published by Lloyd's Register of Shipping, the total tonnage of merchant vessels of 100 tons gross and upwards commenced in Great Britain and Ireland during the first quarters of 1929 and 1931 was 362,000 and 33,000 tons gross respectively, the corresponding figures for vessels commenced in all other countries being 298,000 and 209,000 tons gross. The published information does not distinguish the tonnage commenced for British owners from that for foreign owners.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Did my right hon. Friend say that only 33,000 tons were laid down here in the first quarter of this year?

Mr. GRAHAM: Yes; the figures asked for in the first part of the question are 362,000 and 33,000 tons respectively.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: It is a very alarming figure.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Seeing that so many shipbuilders are idle at the moment, are the Government proposing to take any action to assist shipbuilding?

Mr. GRAHAM: That is a separate question, and I am able to inform my hon. Friend that on that point the decision will be announced within, I believe, the next few days.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAST EROSION.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: 21.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what schemes for preventing coast erosion are in operation in the United Kingdom; how many persons are employed thereon; and whether he will consult with the Minister of Labour as to the practicability of undertaking a large-scale programme of coast protection?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: The Board of Trade are not in a position to give complete figures as to schemes in operation, but some 28 schemes for, or embodying, coast protection works are being carried out, with the add of grants from the Unemployment Grants Committee or the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, and, at the latest dates for which figures are available, these schemes employed over 1,800 men. As regards the third part of the question, the initiative in preparing coast protection schemes rests with the local interests affected.

Oral Answers to Questions — WASHINGTON EIGHT HOURS' CONVENTION.

Major WOOD (for Mr. MANDER): 56.
asked the Minister of Labour what announcement was made on behalf of the Government, at the recent meeting of the International Labour Office at Geneva, with reference to the ratification next Session of the Washington Eight Hours Convention?

Miss BONDFIELD: I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT the statement made by my hon. Friend, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour, as delegate of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom at the International Labour Conference at Geneva on 3rd June.

Major WOOD: Is the right hon. Lady really pressing this matter on her colleagues in the Cabinet?

Sir HENRY BETTERTON: Does that statement also convey the resentment that the Government feel against the aspersion cast on it by Mr. Thomas?

Miss BONDFIELD: Yes.

Major WOOD: May we expect legislation at an early date?

Miss BONDFIELD: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will look at the answer.

Following is the statement:
The present Labour Government came into office just two years ago and one of its first acts was to announce here its decision to ratify the Washington Convention. This represented a great advance on the hesitations and delays of the previous 10 years, and the Government lost no time in preparing the necessary legislation, which was presented to Parliament early last year. It is true that it has not been possible to pass the Bill into law owing to the pressure of other urgent business, arising largely out of the economic depression and the necessity of safeguarding in many directions the interests of our working class. It is well known that the great majority of our workers are already protected by agreements which secure to them conditions in regard to hours of labour which are no less favourable, and in many cases are more favourable, than those prescribed by the Washington Convention. At the same time, the Government has not in any degree weakened in its intention to pass the Bill, or in its firm adherence to the principle of international co-operation in raising the standard of labour conditions throughout the world. If nothing unforeseen happens, it is the intention of the British Government to get the Bill through and it intends to make arrangements next Session for that to be done.

Oral Answers to Questions — DROP-FORGINGS INDUSTRY (WAGES).

Major WOOD (for Mr. MANDER): 57.
asked the Minister of Labour what wages agreements are in operation in the Midland drop-forgings industry and between what organisations, of employers and
employed; the number of employés affected; and whether any recent change has taken place?

Miss BONDFIELD: Agreements covering this section of industry between the Birmingham and Wolverhampton District Association of the Engineering and Allied Employers' National Federation and trade unions representing the workpeople have been in operation for many years. There are also general agreements affecting all sections of the engineering industry. I have no information as to the number of workpeople affected in the drop-forging industry. No recent change in the district agreements has been notified to me.

Oral Answers to Questions — OMNIBUSES (LEICESTER).

Captain WATERHOUSE: 61.
asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware of the decision of the traffic commissioner to prevent all omnibuses, other than those owned by the Leicester Corporation, from picking up passengers within a quarter of a mile of the city boundary; if he can state the reasons for that decision; and if he will inquire into its effects on the public convenience?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Mr. Parkinson): From the information in my possession, I do not think that the statement in the question expresses quite accurately the decision which has been reached in certain cases by traffic commissioners. My right hon. Friend has no jurisdiction in the matter, however, except in the event of an appeal to him under the provisions of Section 81 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.

Mr. ROSBOTHAM: (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is now able to announce his intentions with regard to the modification of the Foot-and-Mouth Disease Standstill Order as applied to the whole of Great Britain outside the infected areas?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Dr. Addison): I am glad to be able to say that I am issuing an Order to-night releasing a large part of Great Britain
from the operation of the Standstill Order. The effect will be that in England and Wales there will be no restriction on the movement of animals except in the English counties of Northumberland, Cumberland, Westmorland, Durham, Lancashire, and the North and West Ridings of Yorkshire. In the case of Scotland, all parts of the country north of the Caledonian Canal will be free. I hope to be able to make a further announcement in the course of a few days.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Does this apply equally to cattle that are detained at the port of disembarkation?

Dr. ADDISON: I am issuing instructions to-day authorising the removal under licence of animals now at the landing places at any time after midnight to-night.

Major ELLIOT: If I put a question on Thursday, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will be able to make a further statement in regard to the position in Scotland?

Dr. ADDISON: Perhaps it will be another four days. On the first available day after that I shall be glad to give the hon. and gallant Gentleman the information. I do not think I shall be able to modify it for at least another four days.

Major ELLIOT: The right hon. Gentleman will realise that that brings us to Saturday or Sunday. I do not ask for anything definite, but if he could give us some indication, say on Friday at the Adjournment, as to what the policy is likely to be, it would be a great convenience to agriculturists, who may not get the information, say, on Sunday for the ensuing week.

Dr. ADDISON: I will consider that and communicate with the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

Mr. ROSBOTHAM: How will this affect the Royal Show?

Dr. ADDISON: Animals will be able to go to the Royal Show from any parts of England except those excluded. It includes the whole of England south of the Humber-Mersey line and a large part to the north of it.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: The East Riding is clear, is it not?

Dr. ADDISON: The East Riding is clear.

Oral Answers to Questions — NEW MEMBER. SWORN.

Arthur Ronald Nall Nall-Cain, esquire, for the Borough of Liverpool (Wavertree Division).

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on the Unemployment Insurance (No. 4) Bill be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 242; Noes, 134.

Division No. 357.]
AYES.
[3.50 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Groves, Thomas E.
Mansfield, W.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Grundy, Thomas W.
March, S.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Marcus, M.


Altchison, Rt. Hon. Cralgle M.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Markham, S. F.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Marshall, Fred


Ammon, Charles George
Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
Mathers, George


Angell, Sir Norman
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Matters, L. W.


Arnott, John
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Messer, Fred


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hardie, David (Rutherglen)
Middleton, G.


Ayles, Walter
Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)
Millar, J. D.


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Milner, Major J.


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Haycock, A. W.
Montague, Frederick


Barnes, Alfred John
Hayday, Arthur
Morley, Ralph


Barr, James.
Hayes, John Henry
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H, (Hackney, S.)


Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Henderson. Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Mort, D. L.


Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Muff, G.


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Murnin, Hugh


Benson, G.
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Noel Baker, P. J.


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Herriotts, J.
Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Hicks, Ernest George
Oldfield, J. R.


Bowen, J. W.
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)


Broad, Francis Alfred
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Palln, John Henry.


Brockway, A. Fenner
Hoffman, P. C.
Paling, Wilfrid


Bromfield, William
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Palmer, E. T.


Brooke, W.
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Brothers, M.
Isaacs, George
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Phillips, Dr. Marlon


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Pole, Major D. G.


Brown, W, J. (Wolverhampton, West)
Jones, Llewellyn-, F.
Potts, John S.


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Price, M. P.


Cameron, A. G.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Pybus, Percy John


Cape, Thomas
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Quibell, D. J. K.


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Chater, Daniel
Kelly, W. T.
Rathbone, Eleanor


Church, Major A. G.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Raynes, W. R.


Cluse, W. S.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Richards, R.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Kirkwood, D.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)


Compton. Joseph
Lang, Gordon
Ritson, J.


Cove, William G.
Lathan, G. (Sheffield. Park)
Roberts. Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Romeril, H. G.


Daggar, George
Law, A. (Rossendale)
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Dallas, George
Lawson, John James
Rowson, Guy


Dalton, Hugh
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)


Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Leach, W.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Day, Harry
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Sanders, W. S.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lees, J.
Sandham, E.


Dukes, C.
Leonard, W.
Sawyer, G. F.


Duncan, Charles
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Scurr, John


Ede, James Chuter
Lindley, Fred W.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Edmunds, J. E.
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Sherwood, G. H.


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Logan, David Gilbert
Shield, George William


Egan, W. H.
Long bottom, A. W.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Elmley, Viscount
Longden, F.
Shillaker, J. F.


Foot, Isaac
Lunn. William
Shinwell, E.


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Simmons, C. J.


Gibbins, Joseph
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)


Gibson, H. M. (Lancs. Mossley)
McElwee, A.
Sinkinson, George


Gillett, George M.
McEntee, V. L.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Glassey, A. E.
McKinlay, A.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Gossling, A. G.
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Smith, Lees-, Rt. Hon. H. B.(Keighley)


Gould, F.
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Smith, Rennle (Penistone)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Smith, Tom (Pontelract)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
McShane, John James
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Manning, E. L.
Sorensen, R.


Stamford, Thomas W.
Watkins, F. C.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Stephen, Campbell
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Strauss, G. R.
Wellock, Wilfred
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Sutton, J. E.
Welsh, James (Paisley)
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Thomas. Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
West, F. R.
Winterton, G. E.(Lelcester, Loughb'gh)


Thurtle, Ernest
Westwood, Joseph
Wise, E. F.


Toole, Joseph
White, H. G.
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Tout, W. J.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Vaughan, David
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)



Viant, S. P.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Walker, J.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.


Wallace, H. W.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)
Charleton.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
Penny, Sir George


Alnsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Everard, W. Lindsay
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Albery, Irving James
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Perkins, W. R. D.


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)
Ferguson, Sir John
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Fielden, E. B.
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Fison, F. G. Clavering
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Forestler-Walker, Sir L.
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Remer, John R.


Bird, Ernest Roy
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Reynolds, Col. Sir James


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E.


Boyce, Leslie
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Salmon, Major I.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Brass, Captain Sir William
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Briscoe, Richard George
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Savery, S. S.


Broadbent, Colonel J.
Henderson. Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Skelton, A N.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Smithers, Waldren


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Somerset, Thomas


Butler, R. A.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Hurd, Percy A.
Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Inskip, Sir Thomas
Stewart, W. J. (Belfast, South)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R.(Prtsmth. S.)
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Knox, Sir Alfred
Thomas, Major L- B. (King's Norton)


Chapman, Sir S.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Thompson, Luke


Christie, J. A.
Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)
Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.


Clydesdale. Marquess of
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Colman, N. C. D.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Colville, Major D. J.
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Train, J.


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Turton, Robert Hugh


Cooper, A. Duff
Lockwood, Captain J. H.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Wells, Sydney R.


Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Davles, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset. Yeovil)
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Mulrhead, A. J.
Womersley, W. J.


Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Nall-Cain, A. R. N.



Eden, Captain Anthony
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Major Sir George Hennessy and


England, Colonel A.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Sir Frederick Thomson.


Question, "That the Clause be added to the Bill," put, and agreed to.

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE.

A. Mr. Frederick Hall reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee A: Mr. Beaumont; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Macquisten.

Report to lie upon the Table

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Sentence of Death (Expectant Mothers) Bill,

Ministry of Health Provisional Orders (Accrington and Leicester) Bill, without Amendment.

London County Council (General Powers) Bill,

West Ham Corporation Bill, with Amendments.

Amendments to—

Rotherham Rural District Council Bill [Lords],

Royston and Brodsworth Gas Bill [Lords], without Amendment.

British Museum and National Gallery (Overseas Loans) Bill [Lords],—That
they have agreed to certain of the Amendments made by the Commons to the British Museum and National Gallery (Overseas Loans) Bill [Lords], without Amendment; they disagree to one of the said Amendments, for which disagreement they assign their Reason.

BRITISH MUSEUM AND NATIONAL GALLERY (OVERSEAS LOANS) BILL [Lords].

Lords Reason for disagreeing to Commons Amendment to be considered upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 181.]

NORTH KILLINGHOLME (ADMIRALTY PIER) BILL.

Reported, without Amendment, from the Select Committee.

Report, to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of Proceedings to be printed.

Bill, not amended, re-committed to a Committee of the whole House for Thursday.

Orders of the Day — FINANCE BILL.

As amended, considered.

[1st ALLOTTED DAY.]

NEW CLAUSE.—(Assessment and recovery of tax.)

(1) The tax chargeable on any person for any financial year shall be assessed by the Commissioners on him or on his personal representatives, and, subject as hereinafter provided, an assessment expressed to be made on any person (whether alone or jointly with others) shall, in the event of his death before the date of assessment, have effect as an assessment on his personal representatives:

Provided that, where the tax was chargeable on any person as joint owner and is by virtue of any trust or agreement payable in the event of his death by the survivor or survivors of the joint owners, an assessment expressed to be made on him shall, in that event, have effect as an assessment on the survivor or survivors.

(2) An assessment may be made at any time not later than three years after the end of the year of charge to which it relates.

(3) The tax assessed shall, if assessed on or before the first day of June next after The end of the year of charge, be payable to the Commissioners on the first day of July next following and, if assessed on some date later than the said first day of June, be so payable on the expiration of one month from the date of the assessment.

(4) Any person aggrieved by any assessment to tax made upon him may within forty-two days after the date of assessment appeal against the assessment to the High Court, or, if he so elects and the amount of The assessment does not exceed one hundred pounds, to the county court for the district in which the land unit in respect of which The assessment is made or any part of that unit is situate:

Provided that the value of the land unit in respect of which the tax was assessed shall not he called in question on an appeal under this Sub-section.

(5) The amount of any tax payable shall, notwithstanding any pending objection or appeal which may affect the assessment thereof, be recoverable as a debt due to His Majesty from the person on whom it is assessed.

(6) The amount of the tax assessed in respect of any land shall, as from the date on which it becomes payable, be a charge on that land, but, for the purposes of the Land Charges Act, 1925, no such charge shall he deemed to be a land charge of a class which may be registered under that Act, and for the purposes of the Land Registration Act, 1925, any such charge shall be deemed to be
included among the interest specified in Sub section (1) of Section seventy of that Act:

Provided that any charge imposed by this Sub-section shall be void as against a purchaser of the estate by reference to which the ownership of the land was determined, being a purchaser for money or money's worth claiming by virtue of any disposition made before the amount of the tax in respect of which the charge arose became pay-abde and after the first day of January in the year of charge for which that tax is assessed.

(7) The Commissioners shall make such repayments and assessments (including additional assessments) as are necessary to give effect to the final settlement of any valuation or any apportionment of values made under the foregoing provisions of this Part of this Act, or to the final decision on any appeal.—[The Solicitor-General.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The SOLICITOR - GENERAL (Sir Stafford Cripps): I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
4.0 p.m.
This Clause, which stands in the name of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is one which is very largely a question of drafting, but it also contains two very considerable concessions which have been put in as a result of the discussion which took place on the Committee stage. I will explain quite shortly, as it is rather a long Clause, what is the position. Sub-section (1) of the new Clause represents Clause 14, Sub-section (3) of the Bill as it was amended in Committee. A proviso, however, to that Sub-section has been added in order to meet the point raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Rusholme (Sir B. Merriman) during the Committee stage. I think that he described it as a point of principle, but it was one which he had no time at the moment to explain. I promised at that stage to consider it, and to see whether any Clause or proviso could be inserted, and this is the proviso which we propose:
Provided that, where the tax was chargeable on any person as joint owner and is by virtue of any trust or agreement payable in the event of his death by the survivor or survivors of the joint owners, an assessment expressed to be made on him shall, in that event, have effect as an assessment on the survivor or survivors.
If I may explain that with reference to persons A and B, I think I can do so quite shortly. Suppose that the land, the unit, is owned by joint owners A and
B as trustees, and that they are consequently chargeable with the tax for a particular financial year as being owners on the 1st of January in that year. The assessment is then made upon them, as owners on 1st January, about the following June, in order that the payment may be made in July. But if the assessment is made in June, after the 1st January, and A has died, leaving as executors X and Y, under the first part of Sub-section (1) the assessment will be made in the name of A and B and would rank as an assessment on X and Y as executors of A and B. Therefore, in the normal course, in the case of a trust, B in fact would be the person who would be the remaining trustee and who would thus become liable to the tax; and the provision is, therefore, made in the proviso that in such an event the assessment upon A does not operate as an assessment upon his executors, but upon B who is the survivor of the two trustees.
Sub-section (2) of the new Clause corresponds exactly with Sub-section (5) of Clause 14, except that an important concession has been made by reducing the period of years from six years to three years. There was discussion upon that in Committee by the hon. and gallant Member for Oxford (Captain Bourne), as regards the length of six years, as being a hardship upon a purchaser from an owner. That has been met, firstly, by dealing with the period of time and reducing it to three years, and, secondly, by a new proviso which is added in Sub-section (6) of the new Clause. Sub-sections (3) and (4) correspond with Sub-sections (4) and (6) of Clause 14, and are in exactly the words in which this Clause left the Committee. Sub-sections (5) and (6) correspond to Sub-section (7) of Clause 14, subject to certain modifications of the provisions which make the tax a charge upon the land. Sub-section (7) of Clause 14 as it now appears in the printed Bill provides that the tax is to be a charge on the land, and in Sub-section (6) of this new Clause the words are re-enacted, but with additional words which are inserted to make clear, first of all, that such charges do not require to be registered as a land charge. A question was raised during the Committee stage and it was
thought wise to make it quite clear in the Bill itself what the position was as regards land registration. The proviso to Sub-section (6) is one which is intended to deal with the objections which I have already mentioned, as regards the liability of a purchaser for tax which might have been assessed upon the vendor, and it is in these terms:
Provided that any charge imposed by this Sub-section shall be void as against a purchaser of the estate by reference to which the ownership of the land was determined, being a purchaser for money or money's worth claiming by virtue of any disposition made before the amount of the tax in respect of which the charge arose became payable and after the first day of January in the year of charge for which that tax is assessed.
It will be seen that it provides that, where an owner sells his interest in the land, the charge on the land under this Sub-section shall not have effect against the purchaser for value in cases where it relates to his predecessor's tax which had not been assessed and had not fallen due at the date when the sale was completed. So that in any case where that is an outstanding liability which is unascertained it will not fall upon the purchaser. Sub-section (7) of the new Clause exactly reproduces Sub-section (8) of the old Clause 14. I think I have explained the position regarding the new matter and the old matter in the new Clause.

Clause added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of s. 42 of 10 and 11 Geo. V., c. 18.)

For the definition of "dealer" in Sub section (3) of Section forty-two of the Finance Act, 1920, there shall be substituted the following definition:—
The expression 'dealer' means a person who, being a member of a stock exchange in Great Britain, is recognised by the committee of that exchange as carrying on the business of a dealer.

Provided that if His Majesty in Council is pleased to declare that the Parliament of Northern Ireland have so amended the said Section forty-two in its application to Northern Ireland as to extend the benefits thereof to all persons who are dealers within the meaning of the foregoing definition, the said definition shall thereafter have effect as if for the words "Great Britain" there were substituted the words "the United Kingdom."—[Mr. P. Snowden.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Philip Snowden): I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I think I can explain the reason for this new Clause in a few sentences. For the last 10 years the provincial stockbrokers have felt that they were unfairly treated compared with the London brokers In the London Stock Exchange, when a dealer takes stock for which he has no immediate purchaser, and has to keep it on his hands, he pays Stamp Duty at a reduced rate. That advantage does not obtain in regard to the provincial dealers, because they are both brokers and jobbers. For a long time that has been felt to be unfair. Strong representations have been made to me. The reason why the discrimination was made was that the Revenue authorities thought there might be some difficulty because of the fact that provincial men were both brokers and jobbers, and the lower rate of duty was to apply only where stock was held by jobbers. But experience has shown that there was not much foundation for that fear, and it is felt that the discrimination may now be removed without any danger to the Revenue.

Mr. SMITHERS: Before this Clause is passed I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is correct in stating—I believe it was quite inadvertently—that if a broker on the London Stock Exchange had stock left on his hands he could put that in his name with a 10s. stamp. I do not think that that is the case.

Mr. SNOWDEN: If I said "broker," I meant "jobber."

Mr. SMITHERS: There is a great difference. It is true that if a dealer or jobber on the London Stock Exchange has stocks left on his hands that he does not want and never meant to buy, he is allowed to put that in his name for a limited time with a nominal stamp. But I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to notice this point: On the London Stock Exchange the rule is most strictly observed that no jobber is ever allowed to deal with the public. That rule is not only strictly enforced, but observed-The question in the Provinces is that there is not a sufficiently large margin to justify the existence of the jobber,
but some of the country brokers have found it to the advantage of the marketability of the stocks there to act in the double capacity. My point is this: Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer quite sure that by this Clause he is dealing quite fairly by all the brokers and all the jobbers in all exchanges? Personally I do not think that he is, quite. Do I understand that a most honourable institution, a splendid institution, the Association of Provincial Stock Ex changes, has given an undertaking that this arrangement will not be abused? Otherwise I should feel compelled to ask the House to divide against the new Clause.

Mr. ALBERY: I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will tell us whether the London Stock Exchange authorities have been consulted about this new Clause and whether they have expressed any approval or disapproval? We have heard about the brokers. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, although in practice there are not supposed to be two different sorts of members of Provincial stock exchanges, brokers and jobbers, in fact to some extent there are, and that on many Provincial exchanges there exists what is termed a shunter, and that he in fact is almost equivalent to the jobber or dealer in London. From the explanation up to the present it appears that this new Clause is going to make a distinct difference between the position of the broker in London and the broker in the Provinces. Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer tell us a little more about it?

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: In regard to the first point raised, if I used the word "broker" I meant "jobber" or "dealer." I am asked whether I have had an assurance that if this new practice were permitted it was not likely to be abused. I have had such an assurance. And, as I said when speaking before, the experience obtained in administering the existing arrangement has convinced the Commissioners of Inland Revenue that the arrangement can safely be extended as proposed. The hon. Member who spoke last asked whether the London Stock Exchange had been consulted. I do not think they have been.

Mr. ALBERY: May I speak again?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has exhausted his right.

Mr. SNOWDEN: May I correct what I said earlier? I understand now that the London Stock Exchange Committee were consulted and they raised no objection.

Clause added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Extension of s. 18 of 13 and 14 Geo. V., c. 14, to profits from business of air transport.)

Section eighteen of the Finance Act, 1923 (which gives relief from double taxation in the case of profits arising from the business of shipping), shall apply in relation to profits or gains arising from the business of air transport as it applies in relation to profits or gains arising from the business of shipping, and accordingly the said Section shall have effect as if—

(1) in paragraph (a) of Sub-section (1) thereof, after the words "from the business of shipping," there were inserted the words "or from the business of air transport"; and
(2) after the word 'ships' in Sub section (4) thereof, there were inserted the words "and the expression 'business of air transport' means the business carried on by an owner of aircraft."—[Mr. P. Snowden.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a Second time."—[Mr. P. Snowden.]

Sir SAMUEL HOARE: I am obliged to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for putting his name to this Clause, in which many Members on both sides of the House take a sympathetic interest. I need not detain the House for more than two or three minutes, but I think it would be courteous in one or two sentences to explain what is actually happening under this new Clause. During the War, when every Treasury was searching for increased revenue, there was a danger that certain companies, particularly transport companies, might be subjected to double or even treble taxation, and in subsequent years there was also the danger of a taxation war starting between one Government and another. Obviously, a war of that kind would have been most objectionable from every point of view, and in the Finance Act, 1923, power was given to make an
Order in Council under which, where a reciprocal agreement had been reached? between one Government and another, certain companies, in that case shipping trading companies, would be exempt from double taxation. If at that time air transport companies had been operating, I am sure that exactly the same conditions would have been extended to them. Since then, air transport companies have developed and have extended their activities to all parts of the world, with the consequent risk of being subjected to double taxation. The time has now come when air transport companies should be given the same facilities as are given to shipping companies under the Act of 1923. That is the explanation of this Clause, and we are much obliged to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for accepting it.

Clause added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Certain vehicles not to become chargeable with higher duty by being used for conveyance of employees.)

So long as a mechanically-propelled vehicle for which a licence has been taken out under paragraph 5 of the Second Schedule to the Finance Act, 1920, is to a substantial extent being used for the conveyance of goods or burden belonging to a particular person (whether the person keeping the vehicle or not), then, notwithstanding anything in Section fourteen of the Finance Act, 1922, duty at a higher rate shall not become chargeable in respect of that vehicle by reason only that it is used for the conveyance without charge in the course of their employment of employés of the person aforesaid.— [Mr. Herbert Morrison.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The explanation of this Clause is that owing to the provisions in certain Finance Acts the concession given to goods vehicles which incidentally carried the employés of the persons owning the vehicle has been withdrawn, and they have become liable to a higher scale of taxation than would otherwise have been the case. We think that the position should be put back to what it was before, and, therefore, this is in the mature of a concession to the owners of goods vehicles which may incidentally carry
their employés to and from their place of employment. The object of the new Clause is to restore this lost privilege. A typical case is the conveyance at the same time and in the same vehicle of a load of building material and workmen who are to perform a building operation. Under the existing law, they would be subject to a higher scale of taxation than was formerly the case. Another example of a different kind is the conveyance of potato pickers in lorries which are also used for carrying the potatoes to the railway station. The new Clause, however, does not confine this concession to the owners of the vehicles, but extends it to the hirers of the vehicles. This is a reasonable extension. A public works contractor who is not the owner of the vehicle which he may require for the purposes of the transport of the material to or from the site of the works will be able to transport his workmen in the same way as a contractor who owns the vehicle.

Captain BOURNE: I should like to put one question to the Minister of Transport. It is not an infrequent practice in many parts of the country for a contractor to get a motor vehicle which is hired by farmers for the purpose of doing their hauling. Practically the whole of the hauling of the farmers is done by one contractor. Will the owner of the vehicle be allowed to use it for the purpose of conveying his employés without having to pay the additional tax? I am not sure whether the new Clause covers that particular kind of case or not.

Sir JOSEPH LAMB: I have in mind the case of an employer, a farmer, who employs a man to pick his produce when grown, but prior to it being grown he may employ men to hoe it Will a farmer be able to employ a man to hire transport for the conveyance of these seasonal workers without having to pay any additional taxation?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: The Clause does not apply to vehicles in general. It should be a vehicle carrying the employés of the owner of the vehicle. If the employer hires a vehicle for the specific purpose of carrying his materials and his workmen it comes within the new Clause, but I am rather doubtful whether an occasional use of a vehicle would come within the Clause.

Clause added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendments of s. 13 of 18 and 19 Geo. V., c. 17.)

Section thirteen of the Finance Act, 1928 (which relates the licence duty on articulated motor vehicles) shall have effect as if for the words "be treated as if they together formed a single vehicle and that vehicle were a vehicle used for drawing a trailer," there were substituted the words "be treated as if—

(a) the vehicle and trailer together formed a single vehicle; and
(b) in any case in which the aggregate weight unladen of the vehicle and trailer exceeds five tons, the vehicle were a vehicle used for drawing a trailer."—[Mr. Herbert Morrison.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This is the old form of the articulated motor vehicle drawing a vehicle on four wheels. A considerable number of what are known as articulated vehicles are now in use, whereby, instead of the trailer having four wheels, it has only two, the front of the vehicle being connected with the motor power vehicle in front. It is, however, moveable according to the requirements of the traffic. The vehicle is taxed as if it were a full motive power vehicle and in addition as if the vehicle were drawing a trailer. The position we desire to lay down is that if the weight of the vehicle is less than five tons it should be counted as one vehicle, although it is articulated, but if it weighs more than five tons, then the vehicle will pay the extra tax because of the additional weight and the damage that is done to the roads. The purpose of the Clause is to safeguard the small vehicle carrying less than five tons. It does not alter the position in regard to the larger vehicle.

Captain Sir WILLIAM BRASS: I bog to move, in line G, to leave out paragraph (b).
We are most grateful to the Minister of Transport for this new Clause, but
we do not think he has gone quite far enough. Section 13 of the Finance Act, 1928, says:
Where a mechanically propelled vehicle used for drawing a trailer has the trailer attached to it by partial super-imposition, the vehicle and the trailer shall, for the purpose of determining the rate of the licence duty chargeable under the Second Schedule to the Finance Act, 1920, be treated as if they together formed a single vehicle.
I noted the right hon. Gentleman's remarks about the five-ton vehicle, but I would ask him whether he could not give this concession to vehicles of that weight. If a trailer is going to be super-imposed upon a forward vehicle which is drawing the vehicle I do not think you will really get very heavy vehicles at the back, because the back vehicle has part of its weight carried on the front vehicle, and consequently the trailer part cannot become very heavy. Consequently, you will have very few of these single two-wheeled trailers at the back. They are, however, very useful and are being used increasingly at the present time. They can be easily detached and arranged. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give this further concession.

Mr. ALBERY: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: The Amendment is not only an extension, but is hardly consistent with the main purpose of the new Clause. The primary purpose is to meet the case of the growing number of articulated vehicles of lighter weight, and, in particular, what has come to be known as the "mechanical horse." It is a useful vehicle and discharges a useful function. It is a type we wish to encourage, because the damage to the highway is not so great. But we cannot break away from the general principle in the Finance Acts that when you have heavy vehicles they should pay a higher tax. We do not feel that it is possible to break down altogether the existing practice that when you get a vehicle above five tons it should pay a heavier tax because of the damage it does to the highway. The real purpose of the new Clause is to give some concession and some encouragement to the smaller type of articulated vehicle. I hope the hon. and
gallant Member will not press the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Income and Sur-tax. Deduction in respect of payment in respect of mineral rights duty and miners' welfare levy.)

Where for any year of assessment rights to work minerals in the United Kingdom are let, the lessor shall be entitled on making a claim for the purpose to be repaid so much of the Income Tax paid by him by deduction or otherwise in respect of the rent or royalties for that year as is equal to the amount of the tax on any sums proved to the satisfaction of the special commissioners to have been disbursed by him in payment of mineral rights duty or miners' welfare levy in that year. In the computation of the lessor's income for the purposes of Sur-tax a deduction shall be allowed on any sum on which Income Tax shall have been repaid as aforesaid.—[Colonel Ruggles-Brise.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Colonel RUGGLES-BR1SE: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The object of this new Clause is to enable Income Tax payers and Sur-tax payers who have to pay the Mineral Rights Duty and the Miners' welfare levy to claim deductions from Income Tax and Sur-tax in respect of these statutory payments. We propose that they should be able to deduct from their assessment the amount of the Mineral Rights Duty and the Miners' welfare levy already paid. I am informed that when the original legislation was passed, it was a pure oversight that this concession was not made to the taxpayer in respect of these statutory burdens imposed upon them. My suggestion, contained in this new Clause, covers both the Income Tax and the Sur-tax. It is true that, owing to a decision in the courts, the position in regard to Income Tax has been somewhat mitigated. My proposal now is that this new Clause should relate both to Income Tax and to Surtax, which are put in the same category together. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will see his way to accept the new Clause, for two reasons. In the first place, as recently as Wednesday last, the right hon. Gentleman himself alluded to the number of times that the owners of mineral rights are taxed. Speaking in Committee of
the House on the Finance Bill last Wednesday, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said:
Arising out of the right hon. Gentleman's legislation in 1909,"—
he was referring to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George)—
take the case of mine-owners, who are taxed three times over. They are taxed on profits, taxed on royalties and taxed for the Miners' Welfare Fund."—OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th June, 1931, col. 538, Vol. 254.]
The right hon. Gentleman might have added to that list the burden of which I am now speaking, that the mine-owners also have to pay Sur-tax on the amount previously deducted from their income both in respect of Mineral Rights Duty and in respect of the Miners' Welfare Fund Levy.
The real ground of my request lies in simple equity and justice. I feel sure that the right hon. Gentleman, when he considers the matter from that point of view, will see no obstacle to acceptance of the new Clause.

Sir COOPER RAWSON: I beg to second the Motion.

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence): I am afraid it is not possible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to accept this new Clause. The position is that there are certain imposts upon, the owner of scheduled royalties. The Mineral Rights Duty is an impost for the benefit of the Exchequer. The Miners Welfare Fund Levy is an impost for the benefit of the miner. These two imposts have been imposed by Parliament in the form in which they are at present. It has been decided in the courts, as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved this new Clause himself stated, that the amount paid in Income Tax should be taken into account for the purpose of deciding the amount to be paid on both the imposts. It would obviously be wrong that, at the same time, the amount paid for these two imposts should be deducted for the purpose of both Income Tax and Sur-tax. The owners would then have it both ways. They would have a deduction of one tax for the purposes of the other and would have a deduction of the other tax for the purposes of the first. Quite apart from that, it is impossible for the
Chancellor of the Exchequer to forego the revenue, which he would lose if the proposal of the hon. and gallant Gentleman were adopted. Further than that, it would not be possible to alter the figures that have been obtained for the various yields. In those circumstances, I am sorry that my right hon. Friend is unable to accept the Amendment.

Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The Financial Secretary will perhaps forgive me for saying that he has failed to make the matter clear to hon. Members whose knowledge of this matter may be less than his own. I was myself a member of the Government which established the Miners' Welfare Fund. I should be surprised to learn that, when the Measure was framed, it was intentionally framed in such a way that, on the sum which the mineowner was compelled to pay to the Miners' Welfare Fund he was to be charged Income Tax as if it were profit that went into his own pocket. The justification for that Fund was in the special circumstances of the miners, in relation to whom conditions had arisen which were really a scandal in some cases. Mineowners had not conceived, at any rate in some cases, their obligations in a sufficiently wide and generous sense, and it was thought proper that the welfare of those engaged in the industry should, to the extent then stated in the Bill, be a charge upon the industry. If it is to be a charge upon the industry, surely it ought to be treated like any other such charge, as one of the working expenses, which should be deducted before assessing the profits for Income Tax. One of my right hon. Friends suggests what, I think, is a very good analogy. He says that the charge should be treated in exactly the same way as premiums for workmen's compensation. This is a charged imposed upon the industry by Parliament. If it had been a charge voluntarily undertaken by the mine-owners, they could, in a large number of cases, have secured exemption from Income Tax by treating it as part of their expenses in the exploitation of the mine. To that case the right hon. Gentleman has given no answer whatever. Or if he has, I have to confess that I have failed to understand it. The nearest I came to it was that I understood that the payment of Income Tax was taken into
account. If that be true, that is the wrong way to do it. The right way is to treat this as a charge upon the business, and therefore, to take it out of the profits on which Income Tax is assessed.

Colonel RUGGLES-BRISE: May I, by leave of the House, make one observation? In almost the last words used by the Financial Secretary in his reply, he seemed to be arguing as if I were proposing that the owners of mineral rights should be exempted from paying the miners' welfare levy, if I understood his words aright. I was not proposing anything of the kind. I was saying that once the tax had been deducted, and the miners' welfare levy had been paid, that that should be treated as deducted in the Income Tax assessment.

Mr. REID: I tried to follow the explanation of the Financial Secretary, but I am afraid I failed to see to what his explanation led. It seemed to me, first, that Income Tax is deducted before arriving at the amount on which this tax is paid, which is simply in accordance with the well-known principle that you are not asked to pay the welfare levy on an amount which you have not received. Why is a royalty owner to be asked to pay Income Tax on an amount which he has not received? The royalty owner has to pay the welfare duty. As the law stands, he is assessed for Income Tax on an amount which he cannot possibly

receive, because it is taken from him. It is wrong that a man should have to pay tax on an amount which, in no circumstances, he can receive. I am not a royalty owner, but the position does seem unfair, and some attention ought to be given to it.

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) said that he was a Member of the Government which instituted the Miners' Welfare Fund. May I say this: the idea of the payment by the royalty owners into the fund was that it was a contribution out of income that might be made to any institution which they thought was worthy. The amount of the contribution to the Welfare Fund was fixed, on the basis that Income Tax should be paid upon all royalty. I have no doubt that under the Conservative Government the amount had not been deducted for Income Tax purposes). The real reason why the Conservative Government at that time decided that the tax must be paid was, that the payment was regarded as a contribution out of income by the owners, who had to pay Income Tax upon it. If they had not done so, their Income Tax assessment would have been proportionately higher.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 162; Noes, 260.

Division No. 358.]
AYES.
[4.45 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel.
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Everard, W. Lindsay


Albery, Irving James
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Falle, Sir Bertram G.


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l. W.)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Fermoy, Lord


Amery. Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Chapman, Sir S.
Flson, F. G. Clavering


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid w.
Christle, J. A.
Ford, Sir P. J.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Clydesdale, Marquess of
Forestler-Walker, Sir L.


Astor, Viscountess
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.


Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.
Colfox, Major William Philip
Galbraith, J. F. W.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Colville, Major D. J.
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Balniel, Lord
Cooper, A. Duff
Gower, Sir Robert


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Cowan, D. M.
Greene, W. P. Crawford


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Cranborne, Viscount
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Hammersley, S. S.


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Galnsbro)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Boyce, Leslie
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Brass, Captain Sir William
Cunllffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Haslam, Henry C.


Briscoe, Richard George
Dalkeith, Earl of
Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)


Broadbent, Colonel J.
Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller


Buchan, John
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Dawson, Sir Philip
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Dixon. Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Dugdale. Capt. T. L.
Hurd, Percy A.


Butler, R. A.
Eden, Captain Anthony
Inskip, Sir Thomas


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
Kindersley, Major G. M.


Knox, Sir Alfred
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)
O'Neill, Sir H.
Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)


Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)
Peake, Capt. Osbert
Stewart, W. J. (Belfast, South)


Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Perkins, W. R. D.
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Peto Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Thompson, Luke


Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Pybus, Percy John
Thomson, Sir F.


Llewellin, Major J. J.
Ramsbotham, H.
Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.


Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Locker-Lampion, Com. O.(Handsw'th)
Reid, David D. (County Down)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Lockwood, Captain J. H.
Remer, John R.
Turton, Robert Hugh


Long, Major Hon. Eric
Reynolds, Col. Sir James
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Ross, Ronald D.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E.
Wells, Sydney R.


Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Margesson, Captain H. D.
Samael, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.
Savery, S. S.
Womersley, W. J.


Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)
Skelton, A. N.
Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavlst'k)


Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)



Muirhead, A. J.
Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Nall-Cain, A. R. N.
Smithers, Waldron
Sir George Penny and Major the




Marquess of Titchfield.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Flfe, West)
Dukes, C.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Duncan, Charles
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Ede, James Chuter
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)


Altchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.
Edmunds, J. E.
Kelly, W. T.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas


Ammon. Charles George
Egan, W. H.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.


Angeli, Sir Norman
Elmley, Viscount
Kirkwood, D.


Arnott, John
Foot, Isaac
Lang, Gordon


Attlee, Clement Richard
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)


Ayles, Walter
Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
Law, Albert (Bolton)


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn)
Law, A. (Rosendale)


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Lawrence, Susan


Barnes, Alfred John
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
Lawson, John James


Barr, James
Gibbins, Joseph
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)


Batey, Joseph
Gibson, H. M. (Lanes. Mossley)
Leach, W.


Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Gill, T. H.
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Gillett, George M.
Lee. Jennie (Lanark, Northern)


Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Glassey, A. E.
Lees, J.


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Gossling, A. G.
Leonard, W.


Benson, G.
Gould, F.
Lewis. T. (Southampton)


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Lindley, Fred W.


Bowen, J. W.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
Lloyd, C. Ellis


Broad, Francis Alfred
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Logan. David Gilbert


Brockway, A. Fenner
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Longbottom, A. W.


Bromfield, William
Groves, Thomas E.
Longden, F.


Bromley, J.
Grundy, Thomas W.
Lunn, William


Brooke, W.
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)


Brothers, M.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)
McElwee, A.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
McEntee, V. L.


Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
McKinlay, A.


Burgess, F. G.
Hardie, David (Rutherglen)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)
Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)
MacNeill-Weir, L.


Calne, Hall-, Derwent
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.


Cameron, A. G.
Haycock, A. W.
McShane, John James


Cape, Thomas
Hayday, Arthur
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Hayes, John Henry
Manning, E. L.


Charleton, H. C.
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Mansfield, W.


Chater, Daniel
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, s.)
March, S.


Church, Major A. G.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Marcus, M.


Clarke, J. S.
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Markham, S. F.


Cluse, W. S.
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Marley, J.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Herrlotts, J.
Marshall, Fred


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Hicks, Ernest George
Mathers, George


Compton, Joseph
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Matters, L. W.


Cove, William G.
Hoffman, P. C.
Messer, Fred


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Hollins, A.
Mills, J. E.


Daggar, George
Hopkin, Daniel
Milner, Major J.


Dallas, George
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Montague, Frederick


Dalton, Hugh
Isaacs, George
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Morley, Ralph


Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)


Day, Harry
Jones, Llewellyn-, F.
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Mort, D. L.




Muff, G.
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Muggeridge, H. T.
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Toole, Joseph


Murnin, Hugh
Sanders, W. S.
Tout, W. J.


Noel Baker, P. J.
Sandham E.
Townend, A. E.


Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)
Sawyer, G. F.
Vaughan, David


Oldfield, J. R.
Scott, James
Viant, S. P.


Oliver, George Harold (likeston)
Scurr, John
Walkden, A. G.


Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Walker, J.


Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Wallace, H. W.


Palln, John Henry.
Sherwood, G. H.
Watkins, F. C.


Paling, Wilfrid
Shield, George William
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Palmer, E. T.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Wellock, Wilfred


Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Shillaker, J. F.
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Shinwell, E.
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Phillips, Dr. Marlon
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
West, F. R.


Pole, Major D. G.
Simmons, C. J.
Westwood, Joseph


Potts, John S.
Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Price, M. P.
Sinkinson, George
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Quibell, D. J. K.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhlthe)
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Rathbone, Eleanor
Smith, Lees-, Rt. Hon. H. B. (Keighley)
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Raynes, W. R.
Smith, Rennle (Penistone)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)


Richards, R.
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Ritson, J.
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Sorensen, R.
Winterton, G. E.(Lelcester,Loughb'gh)


Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs, Stretford)
Stamford, Thomas W.
Wise. E. F.


Romerll, H. G.
Stephen, Campbell
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Strauss, G. R.



Rothschild, J. de
Sutton, J. E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Rowson, Guy
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.


Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
Thurtle.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Deduction from land value tax of sum paid to public authority in respect of increase in value.)

Where in pursuance of any general or local Act any capital sum or any instalment of a capital sum has been paid to any public authority in respect of the increased or enhanced value of any land due to any improvements made or other action taken the the authority, the amount of that capital sum or instalment shall be deducted from any land value of the land for the purpose of the collection of land value tax under this part of this Act.—[Sir T. Inskip.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir THOMAS INSKIP: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This proposed new Clause raises in a very striking way the question of double taxation. I am sorry that the benches below the Gangway on this side of the House, usually occupied by hon. Members who take such a keen and unalterable interest in this matter, are not occupied by hon. Members who could add their criticisms to anything that I may have to say. Hon. Members may be aware that upstairs in connection with the Town and Country Planning Bill a proposal has been made, on the lines of existing legislation, providing that in the case of what is called betterment 50 per cent. of that value shall be paid to the local authority. The Government
had proposed that the 50 per cent. should be increased to 100 per cent., but by an Amendment made the other day in Standing Committee the 100 per cent. has been altered to 75 per cent. But the principle remains, namely, that a portion of the betterment, the greater portion of the betterment, shall be paid to the local authority by the private owner whose property has been increased in value in consequence of the operations of a scheme under the Act. The proposal in the new Clause which I am moving is that when a payment has been made of that nature it shall be deducted from the value of the land unit before the Land Tax is claimed upon the unit.
The owner is in this position, that he has a property which is worth so much, and the local authority adds to the value of that property something else, and a portion of that something else has to be repaid to the local authority. It seems to me contrary to natural justice that, having made paid a portion, 75 per cent., in respect of the addition to the value of his property, it shall none the less be valued as if the property had been enhanced by the whole of the benefit which the local authority has conferred upon it. This question illustrates in a very striking form the inconvenience of dealing with two Bilk concurrently relating to the same subject matter. Whether the Town Planning Bill or the
Town and Country Planning Bill will reach the goal of receiving the Royal Assent first, nobody can tell. What alterations will be made in the course of the Bill upstairs, by Amendment, no one can tell, and no one can say what may happen in the course of the Finance Bill through the House. We have very little time to consider the Amendment, but as matters stand it is quite clear that the Government's present intention is to ask the House to assent to levying upon the owner something which, to that extent, will diminish the value of the unit when it comes to be valued under the Finance Bill.
Having taken from the owner their pound of flesh, the Government ought to be satisfied, but in addition to taking the pound of flesh the Government actually propose to deal with the taxpayer as if that impost had not been insisted upon by the Government. I shall be very curious to hear what defence even the ingenious Solicitor-General of the present Government has to make of a proposal which I think every hon. Member opposite, whatever views he may take about betterment or the Land Tax, would say is inequitable. It is inequitable, and I challenge any hon. Member opposite, be he on the Front Bench or on the back benches, to say, whatever views he may hold about nationalisation, confiscation, land taxation or anything of that sort, that it is right to tax a man upon that which the Government have already taken from him. I can conceive circumstances such as arose in the Amendment which the House last refused, namely, that the Government may be faced with a condition of things in which they have collected a tax which is in the nature of a double tax, for some years, and then find themselves unable to afford the loss of revenue which the giving up of the double tax would entail. That was the defence which the Financial Secretary to the Treasury made and which the Chancellor of the Exchequer supported.
That emphasises the necessity for dealing with this' matter at the earliest possible moment lest, if we allow double taxation and the Chancellor of the Exchequer carries out his veiled intention or threat to increase this impost when the convenient opportunity arises, when hon. Members below the Gangway and hon. Members on this side realise that double
taxation is becoming intolerable, the Government may come along, shrug their shoulders, and say: "Double taxation, yes, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot afford the loss of revenue which would be involved by removing a manifest injustice." He will say that the justice has 10 years prescription behind it, and that the House must expect it as in the natural order of things. This is in its most unmistakeable form an illustration of double tax, and I hope the Government will see that it is indefensible on its merits and that it will not detract from the principle of the Finance Bill if the Solicitor-General yields, and accepts the Amendment.

5.0 p.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: We have been discussing what has been described as double taxation, and it is as well that I should explain what I understand by that term, because it is wholly inapplicable to the circumstances we are discussing. It means that the same taxation shall not be taken from the same source of income twice in the same year. What we are dealing with at the present time is betterment. Betterment, in effect, is the purchase price for a particular value in the land. Taxation is a sum of money levied upon the subject for the purpose of defraying the general cost of the State. Betterment is the purchase price paid by an individual in respect to a particular value given to him by any work or arrangements or plans in a locality. The position is exactly the same as if an owner had purchased land, or, say, a lease, from a private individual, the reversion of which was in the local authority, and had then proceeded to purchase the reversion from the local authority. He would have paid directly to the local authority the price for the reversion. I do not think that any hon. Members opposite will venture to suggest that he was taxed to the extent of the price of the reversion, and that, therefore, there would be double taxation. What he has to pay in betterment is a portion of the capital value of the property which has been created by reason of the works or plans executed by the local authorities.
In these circumstances, I suggest that the term "double taxation" has no application at all. The real point is that the owner eventually gets a property,
say, of £1,500, that he has paid £1,000, and that there is £500 to the local authority, making the £1,500 which is the value of the unit. It would not have made any difference if he had bought that unit straight out for the £1,500 or if he had got the leasehold rights of it for a thousand pounds and paid the reversioner £500. It is impossible for me to accept this new Clause, because it is, in our view, based on an entire misconception of what the position really is.

Major LLEWELLIN: One is not really satisfied with the ingenious explanation which the learned Solicitor-General has just given. He pointed to the case of the man who voluntarily buys something from another person. A man buys, for instance, a lease, say, for £1,000, and having bought it freehold he will have to pay a land tax upon it. It is a very different matter when a local authority makes a road in a man's property that he does not want and the full value is imposed upon that owner. He is not a free agent at all, upon whether he is to purchase this so-called improvement or not. In a very large number of cases he does not want to do anything of the sort, but the Government says, "You have to purchase this betterment value for a sum, say, of £l,000," and, having made him enter into a contract that he does not want to enter into at all, they say that, in addition to the full value of the betterment, he has to pay a penny on the capital value. If that is an equitable transaction I am surprised at the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General putting it forward on those lines. It seems to me to be perfectly monstrous. You are first of all making the owner pay a capital value of 75 per cent., if the proposed Bill goes through in that form, and for ever afterwards pay one penny in the £ on the money paid over to the local authority. He has been mulcted of the capital sum in advance. The learned Solicitor-General shakes his head, but the local authority says you have to pay a certain amount of the value of this land to it.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Betterment is not a part of the value being paid to the local authority; it is an increased value to the individual who owns the land.

Major LLEWELLIN: As I understand it, the responsible authority can recover
from the individual that sum which has been assessed as betterment.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: If there is an increase of value in the land to the local authority there is an increase in the value of the land to the individual.

Major LLEWELLIN: The question is to whom the money is to be paid. I think I am right in saying that the money has to be paid to the local authority. The local authority obtains the money for this land and ever thereafter the Government valuer or the Commissioners of Inland Revenue demand a penny in the £ on that value so long as the tax exists. I should have thought that this was clearly a case where the Government in equity ought to release this additional value from further taxation. It seems to me, also, that the part of the Bill we are discussing has very little relevance if the hon. and learned Solicitor-General is right. Under Clause 8, the value of the land is to be assessed on the assumption that (e) the unit was free from any encumbrance except any of those mentioned in the First Schedule to this Act. If we turn to the First Schedule I (g) we find
restrictions on user which have become operative, imposed by or in pursuance of any Act or by any agreement (not being a lease to which the unit is subject):
As I understand it, the assessment shall be made of the land as though taking into account the restrictions of the user that were placed upon it. That seems to bring us back to the case where the town-planning scheme is in operation. There seems to be a restriction under the proposed Town Planning Act in those areas. I thought, until the learned Solicitor-General spoke, that the reply would be that the increased value would not be put upon this land at all, if it was increased in value by the town-planning scheme. In many cases there may be a restriction under the town-planning scheme.

Mr. GODFREY WILSON: It seems to me that we could not have a clearer exposure of the injustice of the principle of this Bill than the remarks of the hon. and learned Solicitor-General. There is no allowance made whatsoever for improvements in the value of the land which an owner put on it himself by his own initiative, or which he is compelled to pay for by the action of the local
authority. Take the case of land worth £1,000. The local authority puts a road in the neighbourhood, which increases the value of the land by £500, and the owner is compelled to pay £500 as betterment to the local authority. Where is the difference between that case and the case of the man owning land and paying £500 to make the road for himself? You are taxing him on his improvement whether he has paid for it voluntarily or otherwise. You are, in effect, taxing a man on the improvements he himself puts on the property.

Major HILLS: The hon. and learned Solicitor-General made some play with the argument that this was not double taxation. It may not be double taxation in one sense of the word, but it is making a man pay twice for the same thing. A man owns a piece of land and the local authority improves it and increases the value of that land. But he pays for that improvement. He has to pay 75 per cent. or whatever fraction it may be, of the improved value of the land. Because he pays that to the local authority, I cannot see why the State should tax him again on the amount he has paid to the local authority. It is quite true that the value of the land unit that that man possesses has increased in amount, but surely on a technicality of that sort you ought not to tax a man twice.
It is entirely a technical distinction between a man who finds the value of his land increased by the action of the local authority and the man who has spent money on his own land for the purpose of improving it. It is an improvement for which the man has paid. The improvement is made by the local authority but the hand which pays for it is the hand of that owner, and surely improvements which are paid for by the landowner ought to come into the same category as improvements which the landowner himself has made. It makes no difference whether or not he has carried out the work himself. The important thing is that he has paid for it. Here you propose to force him to pay for work which increases the value of the land, and then you say to him, that since he has paid to improve the value of his property, he must pay tax on the money which he has paid to the local authority.
I am afraid that it is no good arguing with the Solicitor-General. The hon. and
learned Gentleman is too much pinned to a system which may be called double taxation or may be called something else, but which means paying twice for the same thing and I fear that any arguments which I could bring forward would be useless to convince him. But I think that the country will realise, if the House does not, how very unfair is this proposal. I quite agree that there is a strong case for betterment. If a local authority improves the value of a man's land, then that man ought to pay, up to 75 per cent. at any rate, of that value but when he has paid that once do not tax him over again. It cannot be right to do so and I respectfully suggest to hon. Members opposite that they cannot have it both ways. Either you want to tax a man on land-owning or you want to tax him on betterment. In this proposal you are spoiling a very useful piece of legislation. I believe that the betterment provisions in the Town Planning Bill constitute a useful piece of legislation but you cannot say that because the amount for compensation is paid to the local authority, while the land taxes are paid to the State, that the imposition of both is not double taxation. It is at any rate a double charge and, even if we are beaten on this Amendment as we have been beaten on many Amendments in the past, I think the party opposite will realise that the country does not like and will not accept an injustice of this kind.

Sir W. BRASS: I was very interested to hear the Solicitor-General's description of double taxation. According to the hon. and learned Gentleman there should not be double Income Tax on one thing, but that exactly describes the kind of taxation which will take place under the Land Clauses of this Bill because Income Tax under Schedule A and the Land Tax will be paid on exactly the same capital. Assuming that an individual owns a piece of land worth £1,000. A town planning schemes comes into operation and, owing to the activities of the local authority, that land becomes worth £2,000. A sum of £750 is paid over to the local authority as Increment Duty on the land. I do not say anything about that. The principle is quite right, but what the Solicitor-General suggests is that the Land Tax of 1d. in the £
ought to be paid, not on the balance, that is on the £1,250 which remains, but on the whole £2,000, including the £750 which no longer belongs to the owner but has been handed over to the local authority. I think that is even worse than the ordinary land tax and, if the hon. and learned Gentleman does not accept this Amendment, what he is asking us to do is not merely to impose double taxation, but to impose that double taxation on something which has been handed over and the capital of which has gone from the owner to the local authority.

Mr. MUGGERIDGE: Hon. Members opposite appear to misunderstand the position to judge from the illustrations which have been given. If a man buys a piece of land worth £1,000, and the local authority executes certain works which increase the value of that land to £1,500, he then has to pay the local authority £500 for the enhancement in value effected by the local authority's operations at the expense of the ratepayers. If that £500 is to be regarded as tax, then I maintain that the £1,000 originally paid by this man for the land is also tax, because the two together simply express the price of £1,500 instead of £1,000 which attaches to that property since the work of the local authority has increased its value. It is not tax, however, but the recovery by the people who actually made the increase in value, of that increase in value, just in the same way as the man who sold the land originally for the £1,000 recovered what he put into the land along with whatever profit he was able to make. I cannot see, therefor, that it is to be regarded as a tax. As to the question of injustice, if it is unjust to put a duty on the £500 it is equally unjust to put a duty on the £1,000. You cannot distinguish between the two. The owner of the property paid £1,000 for it in cash. That money has gone, yet for purposes which we all well understand he is to be required to pay a special Land Tax of 1d. in the £ on the capital value. That is perfectly clear. If he is being taxed twice over on the £500 he is being taxed twice over on the £1,000. The cash has gone, both in the Case of the £1,000 and in the case of the £500, paid subsequently to the local authority in respect of the improvement in the value. He is in exactly the same position with regard to the £500 as
with regard to the £1,000. Applying the principle of land taxation to the two, he is now in the position of owning a property worth £1,500, according to the principles of valuation, and he has paid that sum to the two parties concerned, in order that they may let him have that value. There can be nothing unjust, if the tax is to be acknowledged at all, in asking him to pay 1d. in the £ on the £1,500.

Major MUIRHEAD: I should like to emphasise the point made by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ripon (Major Hills) when he suggested that it did not make the matter quite clear to talk about double taxation. I think that a change in nomenclature might make the issue clearer, but, undoubtedly, this proposal involves a double payment to the community. I use that phrase because it has been used freely by hon. Members opposite. The whole point of the Land Tax is that it is a payment to the community for the right of the private owner to use the community's land, and undoubtedly, whether you prefer to talk about a tax or not, as the Bill is drafted a double payment to the community is to be demanded for the same piece of land. We have already had one or two mathematical calculations and perhaps I might give another. Suppose that a piece of land is worth £150 and that a town-planning schemes comes into operation and betters the value of £50. The value of the land then becomes £200. If the Land Tax is levied before the town-planning scheme conies into operation, 1d. in the £ is levied on £150, the value of the land at that date. After the land has increased in value it becomes worth £200 and, according to the theory on which Land Taxes are based, it is reasonable to say, "Very well, 1d. must be levied on the addition of £50, that is, on the total of £200."The land has increased in value by £50 and therefore the payment to the community must increase to the same extent. But the mere fact that the owner has paid £50 for the betterment means that he has extinguished the sum on which that additional annual tax is going to be levied. He has commuted it. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] He pays for the betterment and extinguishes his liability by that capital payment.

Mr. MUGGERIDGE: He has got the increased value.

Major MUIRHEAD: He has chosen to commute an annual payment by the payment of a capital sum. The Solicitor-General shakes his head and even smiles. The hon. and learned Gentleman appears to be deaf to logic though perhaps not altogether deaf to humour. Let me take the analogy of tithe. A man owns land in respect of which he has to make an annual payment of tithe to ecclesiastical authorities. Let that payment called tithe be considered, for the moment, to be analogous to the payment to the community contemplated in these Land Taxes. The owner, in order to be relieved of the annual payment, pays down a lump sum in commutation of that tithe. According to the scheme visualised in the Bill, the Solicitor-General would regard it as reasonable, after the owner has paid down the lump sum in commutation, that he should continue to pay tithe for future years. Really, if this Amendment is not accepted, I shall despair of the Government.

Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSON, Junr.: The hon. Members opposite who have criticised the speech of the Solicitor-General on this Amendment seem to be labouring under a fallacy which it is impossible to remove whatever arguments are advanced. The hon. and gallant Member for Wells (Major Muirhead) took the case of land which was worth £150 and said that if the land increased in value by £50 the landowner had to pay £50 to the local authority responsible for the improvement and, in addition, had to pay a tax on the increased amount of £200. Apparently the hon. and gallant Member does not realise that if, as a result of action taken by the local authority, the land originally worth £150 declined in value by £50 and became worth only £100, the landowner would be entitled to receive the sum of £50 by way of compensation and in addition his land would be valued for tax purposes at £100. If that be the case where the value of land depreciates, surely it is a reasonable proposition that the Government should impose taxation, involving the payment of £50, when the value of the land increases by that amount as a result of what the local authority has done, and at the same time call upon
the landowner to pay tax on a value of £200. The value of the land as a result of the betterment is £200 and not £150 just as in the other case the value of the land as a result of action taken by the local authority depreciated from £150 to £100.
The whole of the argument put forward by hon. Members opposite is based on a fallacy, and apart altogether from that criticism hon. Members opposite fail to realise the position under the existing law. At the present time, although land may be subject to the payment of Income Tax under Schedule A, and although it may be subject to the payment of rates, it is at the same time subject to the general form of taxation, and is subject, of course, to the same rules as to betterment under town planning. Unless hon. Members opposite are prepared to give up the privilege that landowners enjoy when land depreciates as the result of what a local authority has done, it does not lie in their mouths to criticise the Government for imposing the same principle when the value of land increases as a result of what a, local authority has done.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken showed that cunning, which is usual in his family, of avoiding all the points which we raised. [Interruption.] I have no intention of reflecting on the hon. Gentleman. He deliberately avoided the interesting legal point on the question of tithes which was raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wells (Major Muirhead), which upsets the whole argument put forward from the other side. I was interested in the last statement of the Solicitor-General, when he referred to betterment as really a payment to the individual who owns the land. That is remarkable, even as coming from the Solicitor-General. Earlier in his statement he said that betterment was really a purchase price to the community. I hope that he stands by that statement. Once you have paid the purchase price for an article, surely you cannot be asked to pay a tax on it afterwards. I have no doubt that the Solicitor-General does not see that as applied to land, but suppose that we apply betterment to a lawyer's fees which have increased from £10 to £100. Sup-
pose we call that increase a betterment from the community, and take £75 of the £90 increase. When the lawyer has paid out that £75, can we say to him, "You are still getting the fee, and you will pay one penny in the £ on it"?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: There can be no analogy. What does the hon. Gentleman suggest that the lawyer gets that he can sell as a result of that £75 charge?

Mr. WILLIAMS: That is a very easy question. He gets an influential advertisement and a name which the community has created, and if the hon. and learned Gentleman had to pay on that value he would be a very bad case after a year or two. I will take a definite case and ask him what the position is. Suppose that two trustees own property worth £100, and suppose that a betterment is created by the community, and the value goes up to £1,100. It is the sole property held by these trustees. They will have to pay 75 per cent. of the £1,000 betterment, that is, £750, and in order to pay it, they will have to mortgage the property or sell it. Are they entitled to sell the land in order to pay the tax out of capital? Can the Solicitor-General tell us what is the position of trustees when they are faced with the double tax, which will compel them to put a big mortgage on the property, for, when they have done that, they will have to pay the Land Tax on the whole of the £1,100. We have heard a great deal in this Debate about the Land Tax being only a small tax, but, added to this double tax, it will put a crushing burden on these people. It is meant to be a double tax, and it is meant deliberately to bear on the people who own land. It is imposed with the deliberate intention of making the owning of land almost an impossibility. The Solicitor - General knows that it is a double duty, and that it has been imposed deliberately in order to hit people with whom he disagrees politically.

Sir BOYD MERRIMAN: I listened carefully to the hon. Member for South Cardiff (Mr. A. Henderson, Junr.) because he began by telling us that we were all suffering from a fallacy, but at the end of it all, I understood his point
was that those of us who are committed to standing up for the right of compensation if land is injuriously affected, had not the right to say that the tax must not be paid when it obtains betterment. The Solicitor-General shakes his head, but I do not observe that the hon. Member for South Cardiff is doing so. If the hon. Member thinks that that is implied in the argument we are putting forward here, permit me to say that he is mistaken. We are not objecting in the least to a landowner having to pay under the Town Planning Act for betterment due to the direct action of the community. What we object TO is both paying for that and being taxed on the value after having paid it. Let me try to put our case in a sentence or two. The enhancement of the value of land by the action of the community is stated to be the ostensible justification for the taxation of land values in this Bill. It is also the basis upon which under other measures, including the Bill which is going through Committee upstairs, the owner has to pay a portion of that back to the community, to the local authority. I said that this was the ostensible ground on which this Bill was put forward. That was one of the grounds put forward on the Second Reading. But the Bill departs a very long way from that.
In the case of betterment by the action of the local authority, we will suppose that 75 per cent. of that betterment is paid back in cash to the local authority. That has gone out of the pocket of the owner; he has no longer got it. But the Valuer is to come along and look at the land to see the land as it is, enhanced as it is by reason of the action of the community, and the owner is to pay one penny on every pound of value which is found. How is it possible to say that he is not paying a penny on that sum which he has actually had to pay out just before to the local authority? The hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Muggeridge) has left the Chamber. I notice that the Solicitor-General assented to what he said. Take the case which he put of a man who had paid £1,000 for his land and had to pay £750 by way of betterment to the local authority; he said it was just as true in regard to the £1,000 to say that the penny was double taxation on that, as it was true to say that it was double taxation on the £750. That seems to me to ignore the fact that
the payment of the £1,000, the purchase price of the land, was a voluntary transaction. The purchaser decided to pay £1,000 for the land. He need not have paid it unless he wanted to do so. Then again, in all probability, at any rate, it would be so in a great many cases.
The £1,000 was a figure arrived at as between a willing seller and a willing buyer upon the basis that the land would probably improve in value—intelligent anticipation of development and the like. The £1,000, therefore, represented in both their minds the then present value without enhancement. A man who voluntarily enters into a transaction of

that sort, I agree, has no right, and we are not saying he has any right, to complain of being taxed on the purchase money he has? paid in those circumstances, but we say that it is wrong to take from him the £750 which he has actually had to pay because the land has improved, and then to tax him on top of that. Whether you call that double taxation in the strictest sense of the word or not, the substance of the matter is that the man has to pay twice for the same thing.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 202; Noes, 267.

Division No. 539.]
AYES.
[5.44 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Lamb, Sir J. Q.


Ainsworth. Lieut.-Col. Charles
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)


Albery, Irving James
Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Dalkeith, Earl of
Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)
Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Aske, Sir Robert
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Llewellin, Major J. J.


Astor, Viscountess
Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey


Atholl, Duchess of
Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Locker-Lampson, Com. O.(Handsw'th)


Atkinson, C.
Eden, Captain Anthony
Lockwood, Captain J. H.


Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Long, Major Hon. Eric


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
England, Colonel A.
Lymington, Viscount


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s. M.)
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I, of W.)


Balnlel, Lord
Everard, W. Lindsay
Macqulsten, F. A.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Fermoy, Lord
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Fielden, E. B.
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Flson, F. G. Clavering
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Forestler-Walker, Sir L.
Millar, J. D.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.


Boyce, Leslie
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Bracken, S.
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
Muirhead, A. J.


Brass, Captain Sir William
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Nall-Cain, A. R. N.


Briscoe, Richard George
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Broadbent, Colonel J.
Gower, Sir Robert
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G (Ptrsf'ld)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
O'Neill, Sir H.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Peake, Capt. Osbert


Buchan, John
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Penny, Sir George


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Perkins, W. R. D.


Butler, R. A.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Campbell, E. T.
Hanbury, C.
Pybus, Percy John


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Ramsbotham, H.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Haslam, Henry C.
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)
Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)
Remer, John R.


Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Reynolds, Col. Sir James


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs, Stretford)


Chapman, Sir S.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Christie, J. A.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Ross, Ronald D.


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Colfox, Major William Philip
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)


Colville, Major D. J.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney. N.)
Salmon, Major I.


Conway,' Sir W. Martin
Hurd, Percy A.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Cooper, A. Duff
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Inskip, Sir Thomas
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Iveagh, Countess of
Savery, S. S.


Cranborne, Viscount
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Kindersley. Major G. M.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Knox, Sir Alfred
Skelton, A. N.


Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Thompson, Luke
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine. C.)
Thomson, Sir F.
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Smithers, Waldron
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Somerset, Thomas
Todd, Capt. A. J.
Withers, Sir John James


Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Train, J.
Womersley, W. J.


Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Turton, Robert Hugh
Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavist'k)


Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon



Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Stewart, W. J. (Belfast, South)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Captain Margesson and Captain


Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Wayland, Sir William A.
Wallace.


Sueter Rear-Admiral M. F.
Wells, Sydney R.



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
Longden, F.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Gibbins, Joseph
Lunn, William


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Gibson. H. M. (Lancs. Mossley)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)


Altchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.
Gill, T. H.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Gillett, George M.
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)


Alpass, J. H.
Glassey, A. E.
McElwee, A.


Ammon, Charles George
Gossling, A. G.
McEntee, V. L.


Angell, Sir Norman
Gould, F.
McKinlay, A.


Arnott, John
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
MacLaren, Andrew


Attlee, Clement Richard
Gray, Mliner
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)


Ayles, Walter
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
MacNeill-Weir, L.


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Mlddiesbro' W.)
McShane, John James


Barnes, Alfred John
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)


Barr, James
Groves, Thomas E.
Manning, E. L.


Batey, Joseph
Grundy, Thomas W.
Mansfield, W.


Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
March, S.


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Marcus, M.


Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Markham, S. F.


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Marley, J.


Benson, G.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Marshall, Fred


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hardie, David (Rutherglen)
Mathers, George


Birkett, W. Norman
Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)
Matters, L. W.


Bowen, J. W.
Harris, Percy A.
Messer, Fred


Broad, Francis Alfred
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Middleton, G.


Breckway, A. Fenner
Haycock, A. W.
Mills, J. E.


Bromfield, William
Hayday, Arthur
Milner, Major J.


Bromley, J.
Hayes, John Henry
Montague, Frederick


Brooke, W.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Brothers, M.
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Morley, Ralph


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)


Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)
Herriotts, J.
Mort, D. L.


Burgess, F. G.
Hicks, Ernest George
Muff, G.


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Muggeridge, H. T.


Calne, Hall-, Dement
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Murnin, Hugh


Cameron, A. G.
Hoffman, P. C.
Naylor, T. E.


Cape, Thomas
Hollins, A.
Noel Baker, P. J.


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Hopkin, Daniel
Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)


Charleton. H. C.
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Oldfield, J. R


Chater, Daniel
Isaacs, George
Oliver, George Harold (likeston)


Church, Major A. G.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)


Clarke, J. S.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)


Cluse, W. S.
Jones. Rt. Hon Lelf (Camborne)
Owen, H. F. (Hereford)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Palln, John Henry


Cocks, Frederick Seymour.
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Paling, Wilfrid


Compton, Joseph
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)
Palmer, E. T.


Cove, William G.
Kelly, W. T.
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Daggar, George
Kirkwood, D.
Phillips, Dr. Marion


Dallas, George
Lang, Gordon
Pole, Major D. G.


Dalton, Hugh
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Potts, John S.


Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Perk)
Price, M. P.


Day, Harry
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Quibell, D. J. K.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Law, A. (Rosendale)
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Lawrence, Susan
Rathbone, Eleanor


Dukes, C.
Lawson, John James
Raynes, W. R.


Duncan, Charles
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Richards, R.


Ede, James Chuter
Leach, W.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Edmunds, J. E.
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Ritson, J.


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Lees, J.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Egan. W. H.
Leonard, W.
Romeril, H. G.


Elmley, Viscount
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Foot, Isaac
Lindley, Fred W.
Rowson, Guy


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
Logan, David Gilbert
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Longbottom, A. W.
Sanders, W. S.




Sandham, E.
Sorensen, R.
Wellock, Wilfred


Sawyer, G. F.
Stamford, Thomas W.
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Scurr, John
Stephen, Campbell
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Strauss, G. R.
West, F. R.


Sherwood, G. H.
Sutton, J. E.
Westwood, Joseph


Shield, George William
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)
White, H. G.


Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Shillaker, J. F.
Thorne, W. (West Ham. Plaistow)
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Shinwell, E.
Thurtle, Ernest
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Tinker, John Joseph
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Simmons, C. J.
Toole, Joseph
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Simon, E. D.(Manch'ter, Withington)
Tout, W. J.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)
Townend, A. E.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Sinkinson, George
Vaughan, David
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Sitch, Charles H.
Viant, S. P.
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Walkden, A. G.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Smith, Lees-, Rt. Hon. H. B. (Keighley)
Walker, J.
Winterton, G. E.(Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Smith, Rennle (Penlstone)
Wallace, H. W.
Wise, E. F.


Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Tudor
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Watkins, F. C.



Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Joslah
Mr. B. Smith and Mr. T. Henderson

NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of s. 8 of Finance Act, 1925.)

Section eight of the Finance Act, 1925, shall have effect as if the following table of preferential reductions of customs duties in case of sugar, molasses, glucose, and saccharin were substituted for Part I of the Third Schedule to the first Act:


Article.
Amount of Preferential Reduction.



Cwt



s.
d.


Sugar which, when tested by the polariscope, indicates a polarisation exceeding 99 degrees
7
3.0


Sugar of a polarisation exceeding 98 but not exceeding 99 degrees
9
2.8


Sugar of a polarisation not exceeding 76 degrees
3
3.0


Sugar of a polarisation—


exceeding—


76 and not exceeding 77 degrees
3
4.2


77 and not exceeding 78degrees
3
5.5


78 and not exceeding 79degrees
3
6.8


79 and not exceeding 80degrees
3
8.1


80 and not exceeding 81degrees
3
9.4


31 and not exceeding 82degrees
3
10.7


82 and not exceeding 83degrees
4
0.0


83 and not exceeding 84degrees
4
1.4


84 and not exceeding 85degrees
4
2.9


85 and not exceeding 86degrees
4
4.3


86 and not exceeding 87degrees
4
5.8


87 and not exceeding 88degrees
4
6.4


88 and not exceeding 89degrees
4
8.1


89 and not exceeding 90degrees
4
11.0


90 and not exceeding 91degrees
5
0.9


91 and not exceeding 92degrees
5
2.9


92 and not exceeding 93degrees
5
4.8


93 and not exceeding 94degrees
5
6.7


94 and not exceeding 95degrees
5
7.7


95 and not exceeding 96degrees
5
10.7


96 and not exceeding 97degrees
6
0.6


97 and not exceeding 98degrees
6
2.6


Molasses (except when cleared for use by a licensed distiller in the manufacture of spirits) and invert sugar and all other sugar and extracts from sugar which cannot be completely tested by

Article.
Amount of Preferential Reduction.



Cwt.


the polariscope and on which duty is not specially charged by reference to the other provisions of this part of this Schedule:—
s.
d.


If containing 70 per cent. or more of sweetening matter-
5
6.3


If containing less than 70 per cent. and more than 50 per cent. of sweetening matter-
3
11.7


If containing not more than 50 per cent. of sweetening matter
1
11.1


The amount of sweetening matter to be taken to be the total amount of cane, invert, and other sugar contained in the article, as determined by analysis in manner directed by the Commissioners.




Glucose—




Solid
5
6.3


Liquid
3
11.7 Oz.


Saccharin (including substances of a like nature or use)
2
9/"

—[Mr. Amery.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. AMERY: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This new Clause looks rather formidable in print, but it is, in fact, a very simple one. It provides for an extension of the existing preference at approximately 2s. 4d. per cwt., or one farthing a pound, in respect of sugar with a polarisation between 96 and 97 degrees. The various figures have been worked out on the proportions existing in the present scale, and so as to preserve the present relative positions of refiners and producers of beet sugar in this country.
I attach no special importance to the precise details of the figures, and only ask the Financial Secretary to accept the principle I am advocating. The primary reason why this new Clause is submitted is, of course, the position of our sugar-growing Colonies. It would not be necessary, even if it were in order, for me to, speak at length on Report upon the seriousness of the plight in which the West Indies and Mauritius in particular, find themselves in to-day. Their situation was set forth very earnestly by Lord Olivier and Sir Francis Watts in the reports they presented to the Government. These have been dwelt upon in Debate on more than one occasion, and I need not now do more than remind the House of the danger to the whole social fabric and the whole fabric of government in the Colonies arising out of the fall in sugar prices. That fall is due not so much to the superior efficiency of other sugar growers as to the policy of other countries in fostering their own home market and pushing the surplus of sugar, at slaughter prices, upon the so-called world market, or rather, as I should call it the residual or dumping market.
Both Lord Olivier and Sir Francis Watts have made it clear that the West Indies and Mauritius have produced efficiently. If not the most efficient producers in the world, they at any rate produce sugar at a lower price than at least two-thirds of the sugar-producing countries. But to the markets in which that two-thirds is sold they have no access. Their only market is this country and, thanks to the preference, Canada, and there they have to compete with the surplus of all the other countries. It seems to me that the position of these smaller units in the British Empire is one of particular difficulty, especially those units which are dependent upon a single crop. They enjoy none of that compensation which in a larger Colony or in a Dominion is derived from the existence of other industries, from the existence of a substantial home market, and of a revenue which can, from internal sources, help a struggling element in the community to survive. Their whole existence is staked upon one crop, and they have none of the reserves behind them which would enable them to carry on the very life of their community if the single crop fails.
6.0 p.m.
There is a peculiar responsibility on this country and on this House not to allow these smaller units of the British Empire to go under. It is our policy, and on the whole a sound policy, to treat each unit of the Empire, great and small, as a unit by itself, to encourage it to stand on its own feet, to live by itself, for itself, to get the whole advantage of all its revenues, and to feel that it is in no sense being exploited for the benefit of the Mother Country. But there is also the other side. Where these units cannot stand by themselves there is a real responsibility on this country, a responsibility towards colonies which other countries recognise to a much greater extent than we do; and it is certainly unfortunate that at the present moment the West Indies can contrast the disaster which has overtaken them and the destruction of everything in their society, with the abounding prosperity of Porto Rico or of Martinique next door. Mauritius is in a similar plight compared with Réunion or Madagascar. Those things are not altogether satisfactory to a great Imperial nation. We have, of course, recognised our responsibility, and in a measure the Government have made recognition of this principle in certain proposals which have been placed before us during the past few weeks. We have had Supplementary Estimates put before us to help the situation in the West Indies. We have been discussing during the last week or two proposals for a guaranteed loan to Mauritius. That is a recognition of our responsibility, but in its form it was inadequate and unsatisfactory, and it is in fact a dole and not something which is going to put the people of these colonies on their feet. The object should be to help them to sell what they produce, and that at the present moment is the only problem before us. Let us by all means help them to lay the foundations for a more diversified production in future years. It is impossible for any great change to take place within the next few years, but the essential thing is that we should help them with the disposal of the product by which they live. Lord Olivier put forward a Socialist proposal, namely, the large scale purchase of their output, but he also suggested as an easier immediate alternative the extension of the sugar preference.
Let me say here in regard to such an extension that I cannot see that what I am proposing conflicts with any principle held by those who sit on the Treasury Bench, The principle of responsibility for our Colonies when in distress has already been admitted in the proposals which have been placed before the House within the last few-weeks. There is the other principle of granting preference wherever we have a duty. This has been admitted by the present Government, and its continuance in respect of sugar was one of the few satisfactory outcomes of the last Imperial Conference. Therefore, I cannot see that an increase in that principle of giving a preference on sugar to carry out effectively an admitted responsibility for our West Indian and other sugar Colonies can be in any sense a step which is in principle objectionable to right hon. Gentlemen opposite. In regard to the amount of the preference it will be within the recollection of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that Lord Olivier recommended that the preference should be augmented to an amount equal to the amount granted by Canada, i.e. 4s 8d. per cwt. My suggestion is 6s. per cwt., and I have made it greater for several reasons. In the first place, the maximum suggested by Lord Olivier is not adequate to put the industry on a satisfactory basis and enable it to increase its efficiency and secure reasonable conditions of labour and life for the workers in the Colonies.
My second reason is that if the preference is increased somewhat above the Canadian preference, it will be a very real encouragement to the Government in Canada, which has already shown it self so helpful towards the West Indies in the past, to match our increase of preference by a further increase on their part. But whether they do that or not, an increase of preference on our part would make it more certain that the Canadian preference would be passed on to the producers, and not intercepted by the refiners. The figure which I have selected is one which would also cover the beet sugar position, and put it in exactly the same position as it is at this moment, with the small supplementary subsidy decided upon a few months ago. It is not necessary to point out that as far as sugar beet is concerned, no addi-
tional cost is involved, because this extra preference would naturally take the place of a corresponding amount of subsidy. I have stated the case from the point of view of our responsibility towards the sugar growing Colonies, but I think that a very good case could also be made out from the point of view of the necessities of our own trade. These Colonies, and the sugar growing Dominions, are amongst our most important customers, and the importance of their custom is largely affected by the preference which they give. Some of the West Indian Colonies give a preference of 25 per cent., some 33 per cent. and others 50 per cent., and these preferences have an important effect on British trade. If we are unable to help them we cannot expect that preference to be continued indefinitely. On the other hand, if we help them that preference will ensure that we shall get our share in their growth and prosperity.
In the case of the Dominions, the preference is also a matter of no small importance. Take South Africa. The actual preference on sugar machinery there is not very large—I think it is in the neighbourhood of 5 per cent.—but I can assure the Chancellor of the Exchequer that South African sugar growers have quite consistently, ever since the preference was stabilised in this country, made it their policy, without regard to difference of tenders, to buy all their sugar machinery from this country, and their purchases have run into many hundreds of thousands of pounds within the last few years. I believe it is the case that a very small increase in the output of the South African sugar industry would necessitate a complete renewal of the equipment of their factories, involving very substantial orders for machinery, the whole of which would come to this country.
There is another element in the situation to which we are all very much alive at the moment, and that is the exchange situation. We know to our cost what we have suffered as exporters owing to the position of the Australian exchange. Not only has the Australian capacity to buy weakened, but the Commonwealth has found itself compelled by the difficulties of the exchange situation to put heavy additional duties upon British goods, though it still gives a preference to
British goods, in order to prevent its people buying in the present condition of the exchange from abroad, as this involves them in serious loss. There, again, our sugar purchases, running to £2,000,000 a year, are a very important factor in the exchange situation, and any increase in our purchases of Australian sugar would undoubtedly at once facilitate our trade with that great Dominion. From the broader point of view, which I think is coming to us to-day, and the inter-relation of finance and industry, consuming, and producing, we should be doing a wise thing if we strengthened our markets.
No doubt I shall be told that my proposal involves a loss of revenue which the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot take into consideration at the present time. While it is not for me—it would not be in order in my position—to propose a variant in my scheme which would carry out my object of increasing the preference without involving a loss of revenue, it is perfectly open to the Government to do so, and I should be quite willing to accept any proposal on the part of the Government which either increased the foreign duty and thus gave the preference for which I ask, with a substantial increase of £2,000,000 or £3,000,000 revenue, or, by a purely fractional increase in the foreign duty, would adjust the revenue situation with the increased preference so as to bring in precisely the same yield to the revenue. I am not concerned with the details of my proposal, but with the acceptance of an additional preference which, I contend, is not inconsistent with the principles which the present Government have followed in this matter.
I admit that I am asking for something which the Chancellor of the Exchequer may consider is going back upon the general line which he has so consistently pursued. May I put it to him that the other day President Hoover went back upon a consistent course of policy, and upon the most definite declarations he has made throughout his term of office, and he did so amid the approval of his fellow-countrymen of all parties, and of the whole world. He did so because the facts of the situation in his own country, as well as in Europe, made him believe that a change in his
declared policy was the wise and the right thing to do. May I suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it might be possible in this case for him to depart from the line which he has so consistently advocated, and in fact would be consistent with the generous attitude which he took up only the other day with regard to the Dominion payments. Such a departure would not detract in the least from his reputation for courage, and it would bring to him, as to President Hoover, both immediate and enduring fame.

Mr. PETHICK- LAWRENCE: The object of the right hon. Gentleman and those who are supporting him in bringing forward this Clause is, of course, to increase the preference on Empire sugar, and the home growers of sugar would be affected automatically by this preference. The present Clause would, in fact, increase the existing preference on fully refined sugar, polarising over 99 per cent., by 1s. 5d. per cwt.; on the highest quality raw sugar, polarising between 98 and 99 per cent., by 2s. 4d. per cwt., and on lower quality raw sugars by proportionate amounts. Thus, the duty on foreign sugar polarising over 98 per cent. remaining at 11s. 8d. per cwt., the duty on Empire sugar polarising over 99 per cent. would be lowered from 5s. 10d. to 4s. 5d., the duty on Empire sugar polarising from 98 to 99 per cent. would be lowered from 4s. 9.2d., to 2s. 5.2d., and the rates of preference on Empire molasses, glucose and saccharin would be altered correspondingly.
I quite appreciate the concluding remarks of the right hon. Gentleman, in which he pointed out that he moved the Clause in this form in order to keep within the procedure of the House of Commons. I think it is recognised by all on this side of the House, and probably throughout the House as a whole, that what the right hon. Gentleman would really like to see would be a very large increase in Protection on sugar, as well as on other things, and that he would desire to see that Protection subjected to a greater preference on behalf of Empire and home-grown sugar. That, of course, is in accordance with the policy which the right hon. Gentleman has consistently advocated on every occasion, both in this House and outside.
I am bound, however, in the first instance, to take this proposed new Clause
at its face value, and to point out to the House what would be its effect upon the Revenue. On the assumption that the total quantity of Empire and home-grown sugar remained the same as it was in 1930–31, the proposed increases in the preference would cost approximately £2,000,000 in a full year. But the higher preference would act as a magnet to additional supplies of Empire sugar, and, for every 50,000 tons extra of such sugar each year, the loss of revenue would be increased by approximately one-third of £1,000,000. For this reason alone, of course, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman himself appreciates, my right hon. Friend would not be able to accept this amending Clause. I would add, with regard to the proposals which the right hon. Gentleman put forward to-day, that the rates fixed in the year 1928, when the Government of which he was a member was in office, were the result of a compromise with a number of interests, including the refiners, and I am certainly not at all clear—I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is—that all those interests would be willing to support his amending Clause, I rather imagine that there would be a considerable divergence of opinion upon the merits of the matter, quite apart from the loss which we should suffer in the Exchequer from the effect of these proposals.
I should like, if I may be permitted to do so, to turn from the precise Clause to the larger aspect of this question, and it will not be a surprise to the right hon. Gentleman or to the House if I say that, quite apart from the particular effect of this Clause, the policy which lies behind the Clause is not in accordance with the policy of His Majesty's Government. The furthest that His Majesty's Government are prepared to go was expressed at the Imperial Conference last year, when the following statement was made:
That the existing preferential margins accorded by the United Kingdom to other parts of the Empire will not be reduced for a period of three years, or pending the outcome of the suggested conference (in Ottawa), subject to the rights of the United Kingdom Parliament to fix the Budget from year to year.
That was the expression of the Government's policy at the time, and the Government are certainly not prepared to go beyond that to-day. With regard to
the sugar producers, I think nobody denies the unfortunate plight in which they are at the present time, but the Government have stated quite clearly that they do not propose to give assistance by means of additional preferences which are contrary to their policy, but by other methods which they have chosen to adopt. They decline to increase the prices of sugar by any proposals, which they alone could put forward, and which the right hon. Gentleman has not put in his proposed new Clause, to increase the protection on sugar and increase the preference at the same time. On the merits of this individual Clause, however, because the actual loss of revenue is the final consideration, I regret that we cannot see our way to accept it.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: I would strongly urge that some effect should be given to these proposals. There would not be any increase in price if the duty were put merely on foreign sugar. There is plenty of sugar in Mauritius and other British Dependencies—far too much. Mauritius can produce sugar more cheaply than any other spot in the world, But the island is not well equipped, because of the insecurity of capital investment, and, if a proper preference were given—just a slight increase—there is not the least doubt that capital would flow into the island and the other West Indian Dependencies. They constitute the best possible outlet for sugar machinery. We have a great many places where sugar machinery is made, notably Glasgow, which urgently need orders, and, if we gave these islands a preference which would not raise the cost of sugar to the consumer by the tenth part of a farthing, undoubtedly the whole of these islands would re-equip themselves if they saw that there was some stability in the industry, because they would be able to get the necessary capital. I am sure it is within the competence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his staff so to give effect to the principle contained in this proposed new Clause that there would be no loss of revenue while increased prosperity would be given to these parts of our Empire.

Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: I noticed an inconsistency in the remarks of the Financial Secretary. He stated that, if the policy indicated by my right hon. Friend in this proposed new Clause were carried out, it would, I think he
said, act like a magnet, there would be a great increase of sugar supplies coming from the Empire to this country, and, therefore, he would lose revenue in the other direction. I think that that was his argument. That, of course, is the fact. If you give this additional advantage to sugar supplies from the Empire, the pro portion of Empire sugar over foreign sugar would be very much increased. If that be true, I venture to suggest that it answers the hon. Gentleman's other fear that the price would go up. If you lower The duty on Empire supplies, the result will be that, by those increased supplies——

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I am sure the hon. and gallant Gentleman does not wish to misrepresent me. I did not say that the price would go up as the result of this proposed new Clause. I made it clear that the effect would be a loss of revenue, and I said that, if effect were given to what was at the back of the right hon. Gentleman's mind, though it was not put into this Clause, namely, an increase of Protection by putting on an additional duty, that would increase the price.

Sir H. CROFT: I did not misunderstand the hon. Gentleman at all; I quite understood that. Supposing that the Government said of their own volition, "We must raise the revenue on foreign sugar which we are losing on Empire sugar," the result would be, as I understood, a change in the price. Obviously, if you increase the quantities of sugar subjected to the lower duty which come in from the Empire, that would be the result, and I think that the right hon. Gentleman's fears are clearly unfounded. But I would make an appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We know that his heart is very hard on this subject, but I venture to tell him that the distress throughout all the sugar-producing parts of the Empire to-day is simply appalling, and I do beg of him to remember the larger fact, which is that our export trade so greatly depends upon the purchasing power of the parts of the Empire overseas. We have heard instances with regard to machinery, and the same is true of every other manufactured commodity that we send to these sugar-producing parts of the Empire. It is not a sound policy to contemplate the giving of loans
year after year in order to save these Colonies and parts of the Dominions from bankruptcy. It is far better that we should sacrifice a small amount of revenue if we can maintain the purchasing power of those who are our best customers, and I venture to think that in the long run the right hon. Gentleman himself will come to see that it would be a sound policy to reduce this charge upon the consumers of this country, which I know he very much detests, and to give a greater preference to the Dominions overseas. There is nothing in that which is inconsistent with the decision of the last Imperial Conference. I understand that the decision was that we should tell the representatives of the Dominions that we would not reduce that preference. We are asking the right hon. Gentleman to extend it, so that there is no conflict there. I hope that His Majesty's Government, in view of the changing opinions throughout the length and breadth of the country and in all parties, will reconsider this question.

Dr. MORGAN: I think that the reply given by the Financial Secretary was very satisfactory on this point. I want, however, to speak particularly from the point of view of the poor labourers in the West Indies. It is quite easy for the right hon. Gentleman who moved this Clause to speak on behalf of the sugar producers, but I want to put it to the Government that their sugar policy should not be considered from the point of view of Preference or of Free Trade alone. I do not agree with the Clause at all. The conditions in the West Indies are bad. The conditions in the sugar-producing Colonies of the West Indies are bad. These islands, which are dependent mainly on sugar, are in a perfectly desperate condition, and the policy of the Government with regard to this matter is one that is causing absolute consternation among their friends in these Colonies. But that is not because the Government did not adopt a Preference policy; it is because the Government seem to have a Free Trade policy and nothing else. We have always held on this side that Free Trade is not enough, and Protection is not enough. It would be out of order for me to enter into these matters now, but I want to say that there is another way out. These Colonies can have their finances arranged
in an entirely different way. The finances of Mauritius could be saved a great deal even by the moratorium which I suggested a few nights ago in regard to the military grant. I hope the Government will not only consider the matter from a Protectionist, or a Free Trade or a financial point of view, but will have regard to the dire distress of the Colony. There is a complete answer to the Amendment, but I hope the Government will re-consider the matter from the point of view of the Colonies and not necessarily from the Protectionist aspect.

Mr. BENSON: I was extremely interested in the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spark-brook (Mr. Amery). His explanation as to the cause of the depression in Mauritius was not that Mauritius, as far as its sugar industry is concerned, was inefficient, but that the whole world market for sugar had been upset by the fostering of the various home markets and the pushing of uneconomic sugar into the world market. I quite agree, and that is perhaps the most effective attack upon our beet sugar subsidy that it is possible to make. This proposal to increase the preference on Colonial sugar is a very severe criticism upon the loss that we have sustained, amounting to £30,000,000, which has been poured down the sink in attempting to foster an entirely uneconomic industry. The effect of an increase in the preference on Colonial sugar is going to make the already uneconomic home industry feel the competition still more severely. Even with the enormous subsidy that it has had, it cannot carry on, and there is a Bill before the House to increase the subsidy. If this Amendment goes through, we shall have an immediate demand for a further increase in the subsidy to the home industry and, if it were granted, we should have a further demand from Mauritius for an increase in the amount of preference. It is ridiculous that we should have two industries, beet sugar and cane sugar, and be subsidising both in order that each may cut the other's throat. There is also a Bill before the House guaranteeing a loan to Mauritius. The right hon. Gentleman considered that that was an undesirable way of helping our Colonies. It was, he said, a dole, and he much preferred the Amendment, which he did not consider a dole. What is the Amendment but a further dole, and a
very insidious form of dole, which goes on and on and which people do not realise that they are paying? If we have to help our Colonies, let us do it openly and clearly and as we do in the case of this guaranteed loan. Let us know how much we are granting. Let us realise what the cost is going to be and not do it n this secretive and insidious way of granting increased preferences.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Maintenance but not work.

Mr. BENSON: The position, as has been pointed out most effectively from the other side, is that Colonies like Mauritius are extremely insecure, because there is only one industry upon which they can rely, and they will remain insecure so long as they are in that position. I think the right hon. Gentleman, who is supposed to be an expert in Colonial matters, looks forward in a short time to their getting a variety of industries. He has held it out as a possibility If we are going to subsidise the sugar industry as a sugar industry rather than make a definite loan, we are rivetting upon these Colonies the sugar industry as such and preventing the introduction of diversity into their industry. Prom every point of view the method of granting a definite loan which is not linked up with any particular industry is far and away the best method of helping these Colonies. I was astonished to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that, unless we were prepared to grant help of this kind, we could not expect the preference that they give us to be continued. We allow them to send unlimited quantities into this country free. Where there is a Customs Duty, we give them a far more real preference than they give us. Many of the preferences that our Colonies are supposed to give us are practically worthless. Quite apart from the tax on foreign goods, the tax against British goods is practically prohibitive, and is meant to be prohibitive. The suggestion that the Empire can only be held together so long as it receives doles from the Mother country suggests that, in the right hon. Gentleman's opinion, Empire policy consists of the Colonies hanging on as long as they can suck blood from the Mother country.
With regard to the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Bournemouth
(Sir H. Croft), I was unable to follow his argument that there would be no increase in price if there was an increase on the tariff on sugar.

Sir H. CROFT: I followed the argument of the Financial Secretary where he was speaking of a reduction of the duty on imported Empire sugar on the one hand, and an increased supply of sugar at the reduced price and the raising of the duty on foreign sugar.

Mr. BENSON: The hon. and gallant Gentleman suggested that the raising of the duty on foreign sugar would not have any effect on the price of the sugar consumed at home, because it would be possible to allow Empire sugar to come into the country at a lower rate of duty. That means that we are going to have two prices of sugar. If there is going to be no increase in the price of Empire sugar, and an increased tariff is put upon foreign sugar, you are either going to have two prices or else Empire sugar is going to increase in price. Everyone knows perfectly well that, if the tax were put up on foreign sugar, Empire sugar would rise by exactly the same amount and the growers and dealers would collar the amount of duty.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: If the Empire sugar had an increased turnover, they could afford to sell at the same or even at a less price.

Mr. BENSON: The whole point is that we are to give this increased preference and increase the tax on foreign sugar in order that they may get a Higher price. The industry itself at present is losing. The loss on sugar in Mauritius is so great that, if you let it in free, it would not make a profit. To suggest that we are going to give an increase in the protection of Empire sugar, and that they are not going to take advantage of it, is a tale that we on this side are not going to swallow. Wherever there is an increase in duty there is inevitably, unless there is some counteracting influence, an increase in price. You have only to take the world price of any article you like to mention and you will find that the world prices from country to country vary almost exactly according to the tariff that is put on; and an increase in the tax upon sugar is going to increase the cost of the sugar to the consumer. I am delighted to hear that the Government intend to refuse the Amendment.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 200; Noes, 280.

Division No. 360.]
AYES.
[6.42 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Dugdale, Capt. T. L.


Alnsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Campbell, E. T.
Eden, Captain Anthony


Albery, Irving James
Castle Stewart, Earl of
Elliot, Major Walter E.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Cautley, Sir Henry S.
England, Colonel A.


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s. M.)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R.(Prtsmth, S.)
Everard, W. Lindsay


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J.(Kent, Dover)
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.


Astor, Viscountess
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Ferguson, Sir John


Atholl, Duchess of
Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton
Fermoy, Lord


Atkinson, C.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Fielden, E. B.


Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Flson, F. G. Clavering


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Chapman, Sir S.
Forestler-Walker, Sir L.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Christie, J. A.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Clydesdale Marquess of
Galbraith, J. F. W.


Balniel, Lord
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Ganzonl, Sir John


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Gault, Lieut. Col. A. Hamilton


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Colfox, Major William Philip
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Colville, Major D. J.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Glyn, Major R. G. C.


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Cooper, A. Duff
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)


Bird, Ernest Roy
Courtauld, Major J. S.
G rattan-Doyle, Sir N.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Cranborne, Viscount
Greene, W. P. Crawford


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Gritten, W. G. Howard


Boyce, Leslie
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.


Bracken, B.
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Galnsbro)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.


Brass, Captain Sir William
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)


Briscoe. Richard George
Cunllffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Hanbury, C.


Broadbent, Colonel J.
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks. Newb'y)
Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Buchan, John
Davidson, Rt Hon. J. (Hertford)
Haslam, Henry C.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Heneage, Lieut.-Col Arthur P.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.


Butler, R. A.
Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)


Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
O'Neill, Sir H.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)


Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Peaks, Capt. Osbert
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N)
Penny, Sir George
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Hurd, Percy A.
Perkins, W. H. D.
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.


Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Thompson, Luke


Inskip, Sir Thomas
Pilditch, Sir Philip
Thomson, Sir F.


Kindersley, Major G. M.
Ramsbotham, H.
Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.


Knox, Sir Alfred
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Reid, David D. (County Down)
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Remer, John R.
Train, J.


Latham, H. P. (Scarboro'& Whitby)
Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Reynolds, Col. Sir James
Turton, Robert Hugh


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Llewellin, Major J. J.
Ross, Ronald D.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Kuggles-Brise, Colonel E.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Lockwood, Captain J. H.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Wells, Sydney R.


Long, Major Hon. Erlc
Salmon, Major l.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Macquisten, F. A.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Maltland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Withers, Sir John James


Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Savery, S. S.
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome
Womersley, W. J.


Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.
Skelton, A. N.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavist'k)


Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Somerset, Thomas



Muirhead, A. J.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Nall-Cain. A. R. N.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)
Captain Sir George Bowyer and




Sir Victor Warrender.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Cluse, W. S.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Hardie, David (Rutherglen)


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)


Altchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.
Compton, Joseph
Harris, Percy A.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Cove, William G.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville


Alpass, J. H.
Cowan, D. M.
Haycock, A. W.


Ammon, Charles George
Cripps, Sir Stafford
Hayday, Arthur


Angeli, Sir Norman
Daggar, George
Hayes, John Henry


Arnott, John
Dallas, George
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)


Aske, Sir Robert
Dalton, Hugh
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)


Ayles, Walter
Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Day, Harry
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Denman, Hon. R. O.
Herriotts, J.


Barnes, Alfred John
Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Hicks, Ernest George


Barr, James
Dukes, C.
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)


Batey, Joseph
Duncan, Charles
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)


Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Ede, James Chuter
Hoffman, P. C.


Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Holline, A.


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Hopkin, Daniel


Benson, G.
Egan, W. H.
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Elmley, Viscount
John, William (Rhondda, West)


Birkett, W. Norman
Foot, Isaac
Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Bowen, J. W.
Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)


Broad, Francis Alfred
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Brockway, A. Fenner
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Bromfleld, William
Gibbins, Joseph
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)


Bromley, J.
Gibson, H. M. (Lancs. Mossley)
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)


Brooke, W.
Gill, T. H.
Kelly, W. T.


Brothers, M.
Gillett, George M.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)
Glassey, A. E.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Gossilng, A. G.
Kirkwood, D.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Gould, F.
Lang, Gordon


Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edln., Cent.)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George


Buchanan, G.
Gray, Milner
Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)


Burgess, F. G.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
Law, Albert (Bolton)


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Law, A. (Rossendale)


Calne, Hall-, Derwent
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Lawrence, Susan


Cameron, A. G.
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Lawrle, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)


Cape, Thomas
Groves, Thomas E.
Lawson, John James


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Grundy, Thomas W.
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)


Charleton, H. C.
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Leach, W.


Chater, Daniel
Hall. G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)


Church, Major A. G.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)


Clarke, J. S.
Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
Lees, J.




Leonard, W.
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Owen, Major O. (Carnarvon)
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Lindley, Fred W.
Palln, John Henry
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Lloyd, C. Ellis
Palmer, E. T.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Logan, David Gilbert
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Longbottom, A. W.
Perry, S. F.
Sorensen, R.


Longden, F.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Stamford, Thomas W.


Lunn, William
Phillips, Dr. Marion
Stephen, Campbell


Macdonald, Gordon (INCS)
Pole, Major D. G.
Strauss, G. R.


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Potts, John s.
Sullivan, J.


MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Price, M. P.
Sutton, J. E.


McElwee, A.
Pybus, Percy John
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


McEntee, V. L.
Quibell, D. J. K.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)


Mckinlay, A.
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


MacLaren, Andrew
Rathbone, Eleanor
Thorne. W. (West Ham. Plaistow)


Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)
Raynes, W. R.
Thurtle, Ernest


Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Gevan)
Richards, R.
Tinker, John Joseph


McShane, John James
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Toole, Joseph


Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Tout, W. J.


Manning, E. L.
Ritson, J.
Townend, A. E.


Mansfield, W.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Vaughan, David


March, S.
Romerll, H. G.
Viant, S. P.


Marcus, M.
Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Walkden, A. G.


Markham, S. F.
Rothschild, J. de
Walker, J.


Marley, J.
Rowson, Guy
Wallace, H. W.


Marshall, Fred
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Tudor


Mathers, George
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Watkins, F. C.


Matters, L. W.
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Messer, Fred
Sanders, W. S.
Wellock, Wilfred


Middleton, G.
Sandham, E.
Welsh, James (Palsley)


Millar, J. D.
Sawyer, G. F.
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Milner, Major J.
Scott, James
West, F. R.


Montague, Frederick
Scurr, John
Westwood, Joseph


Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
White, H. G.


Morley, Ralph
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Sherwood, G. H.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Mort, D. L.
Shield, George William
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Muff, G.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Muggeridge, H. T.
Shillaker, J. F.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Murnin, Hugh
Shinwell, E.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Nathan, Major H. L.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Naylor, T. E.
Simmons, C. J.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)
Winterton, G. E.(Lelcester, Loughb'gh)


Noel Baker, P. J.
Sinkinson, George
Wise, E. F.


Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)
Sitch, Charles H.
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Oldfield. J. R.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)



Oliver, George Harold (likeston)
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES—




Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Paling.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Provision to allow deductions in respect of inherently wasting assets.)

For the purpose of enabling deductions from revenue receipts of expired capital outlay on inherently wasting assets to be allowed by the additional commissioners claims in respect of those deductions shall be included in the annual statement requrred to be delivered under the Income Tax Acts of the profits and gains of any trade, manufacture, adventure, and concern, and where such a deduction from the revenue receipts is made, and has been made, from the commencement of the actuol employment of the inherently wasting assets in seeking profits, during a period of not less than three years to the end of the usual financial year of the particular trade, manufacture, adventure, or concern last prior to the year of assessment, and provided such deduction is so made as to prevent the same being available as profits, the additional commissioners, in assessing those profits and gains, shall make such allowances in respect of those claims as they think just and reasonable.
For the purpose of this Section the term inherently wasting assets "means assets
which necessarily waste in the process of seeking profits. Provided always that such wasting assets are not the value of transferred rights to future profits or increase which would have been chargeable with Income Tax if no transfer of such rights had been made.—[Sir B. Peto.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir BASIL PETO: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Amendment is one which has been before the House on many Finance Bills for a considerable number of years. It was first moved as long ago as 1912 by Sir Ernest Pollock, now the Master of the Rolls, and before that, in slightly different form which would not have excluded leaseholds from the list of wasting assets, it was moved by Mr. Gibson Bowles in 1910. The fact that it has a long history is no reason why I should not call the attention of the House to it in this particular year. On the contrary, I hope to show that the question of
allowing industry in this country a proper deduction from Income Tax charges in respect of money not divisible as profits but required in order to carry on industry, and to be placed aside for depreciation of wasting and obsolescent assets, is more real than ever it was before. There is no doubt that our industry is in such a condition at present that it has never needed stimulus more than it does to-day, and the Government can give it a stimulus by removing a portion of what I regard as an unjust share of Income Tax which falls upon it.
The Amendment has always been received with sympathy, from whomsoever occupied the Treasury Bench, and from successive Chancellors of the Exchequer. When it was first moved the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) told Sir Ernest Pollock that there was a real case that had to be dealt with, and in supporting an Amendment moved last year from the benches below, which had a very similar object, enabling the granting of additional relief in respect of money spent upon new machinery and plant, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs supported the Member for Luton (Dr. Burgin) enthusiastically. In 1924 the President of the Board of Trade got nearer than ever before to giving some sort of pledge to do something practical about it. He said that he hoped to put something upon the Order Paper the next year. The next year he was not in a position to carry out that pious hope, because another Government had taken the place of the one which was then in power, but it showed that he had the matter strongly in mind. Last year, when he was replying upon this Amendment, he pointed out to the House that he had taken an active interest in the question, particularly in the year 1918, and said that he was one of the few Members of the House who took a really active interest in the question. He said:
I think that it was during the Parliament of 1918 or later—he and I"—
that is, myself and the right hon. Gentleman—
were sometimes almost alone in pressing for the consideration of wasting assets, depreciation, obsolescence and kindred problems in this country."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th July, 1930; col. 99, Vol. 241.]
As I had his active support, it is interesting to see what he said at the conclusion of the speech. He had told the House that active negotiations had been going on between the Treasury and the Federation of British Industries and the Associated Chambers of Commerce to try to arrive at an agreement based upon the recommendations of the Royal Commission of 1920. He told the House what was the difficulty. There were two limitations in what the Royal Commission recommended—one that wasting assets, should not have a longer life than 35 years, and the other that their proposals did not touch the wide question of minerals as wasting assets at all. He said that he hoped these difficulties would be removed, and expressed the hope that those consultations would continue and that together they should seek as soon as possible to work out a programme which could be considered in a future Budget.
One of the first things I want to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is going to reply, or the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he is to reply, is, how have those negotiations proceeded, and, in view of the fact that industry is now in such a serious condition and so urgently needs this relief, how is it that in the interval of a year which has elapsed since the 7th July last, when the President of the Board of Trade spoke the words which I have just mentioned to the House, these negotiations have somehow not fructified, and that there is no proposal on the part of the Government to deal with this problem which has been hanging over the country at any rate for the 10 or 11 years which have elapsed since the Royal Commission reported? All successive Governments have recognised with regard to Income Tax, that what they want to tax are profits and not money exclusively to be used for the proper conduct of industry. That fact was recognised in the report of the Royal Commission. I will read to the House the summary paragraph in which they make their recommendations. It is paragraph 200 of Part III of the Report under the heading of "Allowances and Reliefs." It says:
We come now to the general or main class of wasting assets to which we recommend that a depreciation allowance should be extended. Subject always to the limita-
tion that their life falls short of 35 years, we recommend that an allowance shall be given in respect of all inherently wasting material assets which have been created by the expenditure of capital, such as buildings and foundations, surface works, permanent way and equipment of railways and tramways, docks and shaft-sinkings, and initial work on development. In every case the allowance should be calculated by reference not to the absolute but to the relative liability to waste.
7.0 p.m.
This is quite definitely the recommendation. The House will notice that in the words I have read minerals are definitely excluded, and, of course, there is the other provision that the assets must not have a longer life than 35 years. The President of the Board of Trade indicated in the negotiations he had had with those two great organisations of industry that it was upon those points there was difference of opinion. It was on those points that he hoped to arrive at a conclusion. Even though these negotiations have proved abortive, it was clearly the duty of the Government, in view of the state of industry in the country and the long history of this question in relation to this House, to have this year dealt with this question in their own way and to have incorporated the finding of the Royal Commission, so as to give, if not the full measure of relief for which industry was asking, at least some measure of relief.
May I briefly refer to the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Luton last year, which dealt with only a part of the subject, but on very wide lines? It proposed to cut the Gordian knot and to say boldly and plainly that any money expended in the next three years on new plant and machinery under schemes of rationalisation to replace obsolescent plant and machinery, the use of which was uneconomic, any expenditure at all excluding buildings on plant and machinery, should be free of Income Tax. The Chancellor of the Exchequer will probably remember the speech that he made in reply. He said the Amendment was so widely framed that it would apply to the ice-cream vendor, and he also referred to the brewers. I never understand why those particular industries are never considered worthy of any financial assistance at all. At any rate they employ somebody, and an in-
dustry that employs anybody at the present time seems an industry worth encouraging. He also said that it would apply to a doctor with a lucrative practice, who could buy himself a Rolls-Royce car and claim 4s. 6d. in the pound on the price of the car less the cost of the car he replaced, which he estimated would be of a much lower value. I do not want to deal with his somewhat sarcastic criticisms of the Amendment or the reasons he gave why he could not accept it, but I am entitled to recall to him and to the House two sympathetic passages in his speech:
The hon. Gentleman says that he has made this proposal because he believes that it will encourage the scrapping of old plant and re-equipment. I think that is a most desirable and most necessary object at the present time. We may differ as to the best means by which that purpose is to be achieved, but there can be no doubt as to the desirability of doing what we can to attain that object.
The other passage to which I want to refer is the conclusion of the right hon. Gentleman's speech last year:
I realise that the hon. Member and his friends who have put down this proposal have not had expert advice or official knowledge at their disposal, but I recognise that it is an honest and a sincere attempt to make a contribution to the solution of this problem. In its present form, however, it is quite unacceptable, and if I reject it, I am quite ready to consider any proposal put forward for the same purpose and in the same spirit."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th July, 1930; cols. 483–490, Vol. 241.]
In view of those words, I specially ask the favourable consideration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the modest and well-tried proposal embodied in this Amendment. Although it is drafted somewhat wider than the recommendation of the Royal Commission, yet it expressly includes in the proviso that:
such wasting assets are not the value of transferred rights to future profits or increase which would have been chargeable with Income Tax if no transfer of such rights had been made.
Those words exclude all questions of leaseholds and matters of that kind. I am not asking in this Amendment for a complete exemption from Income Tax of all sums required to replace obsolescent machinery. I am merely asking that the Commissioners, in assessing such profits and gains, shall make such allowances in respect of those claims as
they think just and reasonable. Surely those words are very just and reasonable words to put into the Finance Bill of the present year, considering the state of industry. The earlier part of the new Clause provides that:
For the purpose of enabling deductions from revenue receipts of expired capital outlay on inherently wasting assets to be allowed by the additional commissioners claims in respect of those deductions shall be included in the annual statement required to be delivered under the Income Tax Acts of the profits and gains of any trade, manufacture, adventure, and concern, and where such a deduction from the revenue receipts is made, and has been made, from the commencement of the actual employment of the inherently wasting assets in seeking profits, or during a period of not less than three years to the end of the usual financial year of the particular trade, manufacture, adventure, or concern last prior to the year of assessment.
That is the principle in the Amendment, and it leaves the exact amount of the allowance to be made to the discretion of the Special Commissioners of Income Tax. That is the scope of the proposal, and very briefly the history of this proposal as it has been before the House. In conclusion, I feel that we have a grievance against the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Treasury in this matter. We have a Finance Bill before us, of which seven-eighths is occupied by proposals for a new tax, which we say would undoubtedly put an additional burden on a great many, if not all, the industries of the country, at a time when we have had repeated assurances from Chancellor after Chancellor that this question is urgent and that they recognise that this is a relief that industry has a right to demand and to have conceded to it.
That being so, I cannot help reflecting how much more easily this Finance Bill would have passed through this House, and how there would have been no need for the Guillotine procedure under which we are acting, if only the Chancellor had carried out—I will not say these pledges, because I do not want to overstate—these hopes, repeatedly expressed from the Treasury Bench, that a solution of the problem might be found, and had incorporated in his Finance Bill, instead of this land taxation, a couple of simple Clauses, one dealing with this problem of wasting assets and the other with the problem raised from the
benches below me last year, when, on a Division, the Government had a majority of only two in its favour. Surely, those are the things the House has shown it is interested in and that industry requires. We could have had a Finance Bill with all the taxing proposals necessary to finance the country for the present year, and the two Clauses dealing with a long overdue relief to industry, instead of all this vast mass of proposals which are so contentious and which are bound to impose further imposts and burdens on industry. I, therefore, move this new Clause, confidently expecting that I shall receive the support of every hon. Member below me, because it incorporates a large part of what they so urgently asked last year. I feel confident, too, that the Chancellor on reflection will feel he ought to include it in the Finance Bill.

Sir HILTON YOUNG: I beg to second the Motion.
When we are having a direct Debate on unemployment, how great would be the interest if anyone were to state that he was in possession of a direct proposal for reducing unemployment. Now, in the course of the discussion on the Finance Bill, we do have an opportunity of dealing with a proposal which it is reasonable to suggest would have more direct benefit in a root cure of unemployment than almost any other single act performed by the Government. It is not unnatural, therefore, that we should ask for it the serious consideration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The general basis of the proposal is that a difference should be made in accordance with the destination of income. We recognise, of course, that that is a very big and rather revolutionary proposal as regards the Income Tax. This particular Clause, this ever popular Clause of my hon. Friend, looks as if it were meant only for a private fight of Income Tax experts, but it does raise this very broad principle in practically the only way in which it can be raised by a private Member, because every other Clause and Amendment proposed to raise this matter has fallen a victim to the Rules of Order, and this alone survives. The contention it raises is that at the present time the greatest need of our productive system is all those forms of energy which
are necessary for re-equipment, reorganisation and expansion. Principal among those forms of energy is fresh capital. Fresh capital can be obtained only from savings, and those savings occur first in the form of the revenue of these businesses. The contention is, further, that at the present time the fund, which is the essential energy for the restoration of the production of the country, is being unduly depleted by taxation.
I shall not go into the general question of whether the whole burden of taxation is too great, because this is a convenient occasion for proposing another equally important topic, that the same evil results are due to a maladjustment of the burdens of taxation. Income Tax can only avoid doing infinite harm, when it arrives at the severity of our present tax, if it is well adjusted. That surely is a very obvious proposal. No ill-adjustment could be more mischievous than any which has the effect of making the burden of the tax fall, not upon true profits, but on that part of the income of the business which is not true profits, but which is essential for re-investment in the business. That is the contention and that that is the nature of the maladjustment of our Income Tax is not doubted by any business man or any official of the Inland Revenue Department.
There is a maladjustment of our Income Tax at the present time in that too great a part of it falls, not upon the true profits of the business, but upon the part of it necessary for restoration and re-equipment. Allowances are made, but they are not great enough for modern requirements. The allowances for depreciation and so on might have been good enough when first instituted, but circumstances then were very different. The original system was established at a time when the temper, the rate of discovery was much less than it is now. The rate of advance in discovery is so much greater now that much bigger reinvestments are required, and much greater allowances ought to be made.
One of the gravest reasons why we fall behind our competitors in other parts of the world in production, why we are losing our international trade, is because this handicap is imposed upon our producers. In comparison with their foreign
rivals they are not allowed by the tax collector to have so much of their revenue for reinvestment in their business-In other nations, where the system is more scientific, a much larger allowance is made than in this country. I contend that in modern conditions it is quite impossible for any nation, considered as a productive unit, to make good in competition with its rivals unless it gives its producers as favourable treatment in regard to this matter as any other national unit gives to its producers. It has been admitted by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer and by past Chancellors of the Exchequer that this question requires serious and immediate attention. My hon. Friend the Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) has narrated the history. Those of us who are familiar with the Debates on this particular matter are quite used to hear that such and such a proposal will not hold water, it will lose so much revenue here and so much revenue there, and that it will not affect our purpose; that altogether that it is a rotton Clause. That may be so, but goodness knows Income Tax law is now in such a state of complexity that nobody who does not spend his life at it and is not equipped with the brain of a mathematician or the persistency of a hygienist can hope to frame a Clause which will hold water. It is the obligation of the Government to propose the right Clause to deal with this matter, and we are offering them an opportunity to tell us that our Clause is wrong and that they will produce a new Clause which will achieve the purpose. We should be most grateful.
The matter may be summed up in this way: We are always told with justice and with truth that it is one of the tables of the law, one of the bases of the Income Tax, that you must not allow deductions in respect of allocations of revenue for capital purposes, and that you must not consider the destination of revenue. We may admit that both these principles are necessary and sound in the original Income Tax scheme, when the tax was an inconsiderable part of the burden of the cost of industry, but surely it is time we oponed our eyes to the fact that the burden has now mounted to a point when it is one of the principal outlets and drains upon industry, upon the capital income of industry, and that although you may like to be able to maintain these
principles for the sake of the simplicity of the tax you cannot afford to do so any longer. Unless you are prepared to give some relief to industry, you are going to inflict upon it a wound which must mean long and slow decay.

Mr. PETHICK - LAWRENCE: The right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Sir H. Young) has referred to this proposal as a popular Clause and although he afterwards qualified that by saying that no doubt it would be described as a rotten Clause, yet I think his description of popular must remain. The hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) said how popular the Budget would have been if it had included two new Clauses, one the Clause which he has moved and the other a Clause proposed by the hon. Member for Luton (Dr. Burgin) last year.

Sir B. PETO: I did not suggest the Clause which was actually moved by the hon. Member for Luton (Dr. Burgin).

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: A Clause containing in the main the suggestions put forward by the hon. Member for Luton. I do not want to misrepresent the hon. Member for Barnstaple. Of course, any Clause which makes large remissions of taxation is always popular, and if you take the two new Clauses to which the hon. Member for Barnstaple has referred they would mean a loss to the revenue of certainly £30,000,000 a year, and probably between £40,000,000 and £50,000,000 a year. In themselves these proposals would undoubtedly be exceedingly popular, but the hon. Member is not so simple as to imagine that they could stand alone. If they were introduced they would have to be accompanied by other Clauses imposing a similar amount to make good the loss inflicted by them, and it would mean an addition of sixpence on the Income Tax and probably the full amount of one shilling. I am not at all sure that if my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had introduced a Budget containing these two new Clauses and in addition a further sixpence or one shilling on the Income Tax it would have been as popular as the hon. Member seems to imagine.
It is admitted on all sides of the House that the present position is not wholly satisfactory, and hon. Members will recollect that the Royal Commission on
Income Tax made certain recommendations in their report. I am not going to take up the time of the House by referring to these recommendations in detail but, broadly speaking, their effect was that they would increase the allowances in certain cases and reduce them in others, and it was because of the dual nature of the recommendations that they did not meet with the acceptance and approval of industry as a whole. Last year the President of the Board of Trade pointed out that these proposals were not acceptable to the Federation of British Industries. The hon. Member for Barnstaple has asked whether further negotiations and discussions have been proceeding on these lines. I will only say this, that I have had on one occasion the views of the Federation of British Industries and they have not put before the Government any practicable acceptance of the recommendations of the Royal Commission. While they are anxious to obtain any additional allowances they are not prepared to have such allowances taken away from them as contemplated by the Royal Commission in its report. The proposals they desire to see are exceedingly sweeping and would involve very considerable reductions in revenue.
The right hon. Member for Sevenoaks quite properly pointed out that since Income Tax was inaugurated great changes in industry have taken place and that the relationship of income to capital is different to what it was in the simple old days when the demarcation could be more, closely and definitely defined. That, however, is a very big question, and I am not at all sure that the balance is wholly on one side. There are many sums which come to the taxpayer which, because we are dealing with income, are excluded from the purview of taxation, whereas if we included ail increases of capita] we should cover a much wider field. It may he the case that in days to come the strictly Income Tax character of this taxation will be modified, but when it comes to be modified it may not be all on one side and solely for the benefit of the taxpayer. [Interruption.] What I mean is this, that the line which divides income in the strict sense from increases or decreases of wealth through appreciation or depreciation of capital is a line which becomes blurred in modern life, but I agree that
some change in Income Tax practice may be adopted in the years to come. Some would be in favour of the taxpayer and some would be to his detriment. As far as the new Clause is concerned I will not go as far as the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks, but I am afraid in its present form it is unacceptable and I must ask the House to reject it.

Mr. LEIF JONES: It is rather remarkable that the speech of the Financial Secretary is much less favourable to the view put forward in support of the Amendment than it was seven years ago. The President of the Board of Trade, who was then Financial Secretary to the Treasury, promised faithfully to inquire into this question and see what could be done. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was sitting beside him and we gathered then that an investigation was to be made. Seven years have passed

and the right hon. Gentleman is again the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and it is a little disappointing that the reply on this subject, which certainly wants investigating, should be less favourable than it was seven years ago.

Mr. HASLAM: The Financial Secretary to the Treasury has admitted that the loss to the revenue if this proposal were accepted would be from £40,000,000 to £50,000,000. My hon. Friend the Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) may well feel justified in having moved this new Clause, because that admission shows that this amount of money is being unjustifiably taken from industry and is a condemnation of the Income Tax system as at present imposed.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 226; Noes, 284.

Division No. 361.]
AYES.
[7.30 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Chapman, Sir S.
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)


Alnsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Christie, J. A.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John


Albery, Irving James
Clydesdale, Marquess of
Gritten, W. G. Howard


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.


Allen, Sir J. sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)
Colfox, Major William Philip
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Colman, N. C. D.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.


Astor, Maj. Hon. John J.(Kent, Dover)
Colville, Major D. J.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)


Astor, Viscountess
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Hamilton, Sir George (llford)


Atholl, Duchess of
Cooper, A. Duff
Hammersley, S. S.


Atkinson, C.
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Cranborne, Viscount
Haslam, Henry C.


Balfour, Captain H. H. (l. of Thanet)
Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)


Balniel, Lord
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Galnsbro)
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)


Beaumont, M. W.
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller


Bellairs, Commander Cariyon
Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.


Bird, Ernest Roy
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer


Bowyer, Captain Sir Gorge E. W.
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Hurd, Percy A.


Boyce, Leslie
Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.


Bracken, B.
Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.


Braithwalte, Major A. N.
Eden, Captain Anthony
Inskip, Sir Thomas


Brass, Captain Sir William
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Iveagh, Countess of


Briscoe, Richard George
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Kindersley, Major G. M.


Broadbent, Colonel J.
England, Colonel A.
Knox, Sir Alfred


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
Lamb, Sir J. Q.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berks, Newb'y)
Everard, W. Lindsay
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)


Buchan, John
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Ferguson, Sir John
Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' Whitby)


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Fielden, E. B.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Fison, F. G. Clavering
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)


Butler, R. A.
Forestler-Walker, Sir L.
Llewellin, Major J. J


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Frece, Sir Walter de
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey


Campbell, E. T.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Lockwood, Captain J. H.


Carver, Major W. H.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Long, Major Hon. Eric


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Ganzonl, Sir John
Lymington, Viscount


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
Macdonald, Capt. P. D, (I. of W.)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Macquisten, F. A.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Maltland, A. (Kent, Faversham)


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Gower, Sir Robert
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Margesson, Captain H. D.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A.(Birm., W.)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Marjoribanks, Edward


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.


Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs, Stretford)
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Thompson, Luke


Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Ross, Ronald D.
Thomson, Sir F.


Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)
Rothschild, J. de
Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.


Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Ruggies-Brise, Colonel E.
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Clrencester)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Train, J.


Morrison, Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Salmon, Major I.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Muirhead, A. J.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Turton, Robert Hugh


Nall-Cain, A. R. N.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G.(Ptrsf'ld)
Savery, S. S.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome
Wayland, Sir William A.


Peake, Capt. Osbert
Skelton, A. N.
Wells, Sydney R.


Penny, Sir George
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Smith. R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Perkins, W. R. D.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Somerset, Thomas
Withers, Sir John James


Pllditch, Sir Philip
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Pownall, Sir Assheton
Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Womersley, W. J.


Ramsbotham, H.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Rawson, Sir Cooper
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavlst'k)


Reid, David D. (County Down)
Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Remer, John R.
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur



Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.
Stewart, W. J (Belfast South)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Reynolds, Col. Sir James
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Major Sir George Hennessy and


Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'te'y)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.
Major the Marquess of Tihchfield.


Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Daggar, George
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)


Adamson. W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Dallas, George
Herrlotts, J.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Dalton, Hugh
Hicks, Ernest George


Altchison, Rt. Hon. Cralgle M.
Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)


Alpass, J. H.
Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)


Ammon, Charles George
Day, Harry
Hoffman, P. C.


Angell, Sir Norman
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Hollins, A.


Arnott, John
Dudgeon, Major C. R
Hopkin, Daniel


Aske, Sir Robert
Dukes, C.
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Duncan, Charles
John, William (Rhondda, West)


Ayles, Walter
Ede, James Chuter
Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Edmunds, J. E.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Barnes, Alfred John
Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Barr, James
Egan, W. H.
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)


Batey, Joseph
Elmley, Viscount
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Kelly, W. T.


Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Kenworthy. Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.


Benson, G.
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
Kirkwood, D.


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Gibbins, Joseph
Knight, Holford


Birkett, W. Norman
Gibson, H. M. (Lancs. Mossley)
Lang, Gordon


Bilndell, James
Gill, T. H.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Gillett, George M.
Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)


Bowen, J. W.
Glassey, A. E.
Law, Albert (Bolton)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Gossling, A. G.
Law, A. (Rosendale)


Broad, Francis Alfred
Gould, F.
Lawrence, Susan


Brockway, A. Fenner
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edln., Cent.)
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)


Bromfield, William
Gray, Milner
Lawson, John James


Bromley, J.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Coine)
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)


Brooke, W.
Grenfelt, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Leach, W.


Brothers, M.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Groves, Thomas E.
Lees, J.


Buchanan, G.
Grundy, Thomas W.
Leonard, W.


Burgess, F. G.
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Lewis. T. (Southampton)


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Lindley, Fred W.


Caine, Hall-, Derwent
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Lloyd, C. Ellis


Cameron, A. G.
Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
Logan. David Gilbert


Cape, Thomas
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Longbottom, A. W.


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Longden, F.


Charleton, H. C.
Hardie, David (Rutherglen)
Lunn, William


Chater, Daniel
Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)


Church, Major A. G.
Harris, Percy A.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)


Clarke, J S.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)


Cluse, W. S.
Haycock, A. W.
McElwee, A.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Hayday, Arthur
McEntee, V. L.


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Hayes, John Henry
McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)


Compton, Joseph
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
McKinlay, A.


Cove, William G.
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
MacLaren, Andrew


Cowan, D. M.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)




McShane, John James
Price, M. P.
Stephen, Campbell


Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Pybus, Percy John
Strauss, G. R.


Manning, E. L.
Quibell, D. J. K.
Sullivan, J.


Mansfield, W.
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Sutton, J. E.


March, S.
Rathbone, Eleanor
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Marcus, M.
Raynes, W. R.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)


Markham, S. F.
Richards, R.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Marley, J.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Marshall, Fred
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Tinker, John Joseph


Mathers, George
Ritson, J.
Toole, Joseph


Matters. L. W.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Tout, W. J.


Maxton, James
Romerll, H. G.
Townend, A. E.


Messer, Fred
Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Vaughan, David


Middleton, G.
Rowson, Guy
Viant, S. P.


Millar, J. D.
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
Walkden, A. G.


Mliner, Major J.
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Walker, J.


Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Samuel Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Wallace, H. W.


Morley, Ralph
Sanders, W. S.
Watkins, F. C.


Morris, Rhys Hopkins
Sandham, E.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Sawyer, G. F.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Joslah


Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Scott, James
Wellock, Wilfred


Mort, D. L.
Scurr, John
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Mull, G
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Muggerldge, H. T.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
West, F. R.


Murnin, Hugh
Sherwood, G. H.
Westwood, Joseph


Nathan, Major H. L.
Shield, George William
White, H. G.


Naylor, T. E.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Shillaker, J. F.
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)
Shinwell, E.
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Oldfield, J. R.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Oliver, George Harold (likeston)
Simmons, C. J.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Wlthington)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Sinclair, Sir A, (Caithness)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Owen, H. F. (Hereford)
Sinkinson, George
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Palln, John Henry
Sitch, Charles H.
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Paling, Wilfrid
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Palmer, E. T.
Smith, Lees-, Rt. Hon. H. B. (Keighley)
Winterton, G. E.(Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Wise, E. F.


Perry, S. F.
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Peters, Dr. Sidney John
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip



Phillips, Dr. Marlon
Snowden, Thomas (Accrlngton)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Pole, Major D. G.
Sorensen, R.
Mr. B. Smith and Mr. Thurtle.


Potts, John S.
Stamford, Thomas W.

CLAUSE 7.—(Charge of land value tax.)

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move, in page 4, line 38, to leave out the words "relating to exemptions."
In order to explain the significance of this Amendment, I must refer to a Clause which comes later in the Bill, namely, Clause 15, because the whole purpose of this Amendment is to prepare the way and to make it possible for us to move the series of Amendments which appears on the Paper to Clause 15. I should like for a moment to examine the provisions of Clause 15, which maintains the charge of a tax at 1d. in the £, but alters the valuation of the land by subtracting from it either four times the Schedule A valuation, the annual value, or seven-eighths of the land value, whichever is the less. It will be remembered by the House that the original proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not contain any such deduction or subtraction as that. The full charge was to be imposed in every case. The alteration which finds its place in the Clause, as it is now printed in the Bill, was intro-
duced by the Chancellor in order to meet the Liberals' objections to the original Clause. These Liberal objections were expressed in an Amendment which was afterwards withdrawn, or was finally out of order, but which denoted, as we understood, and as I think was generally understood throughout the country, the objection in principle to the idea of double taxation.
Therefore, the first question that arises is: Does this Amendment to Clause 15, in the form in which we now find it, prevent double taxation? The Chancellor of the Exchequer tells us that it does not. On the contrary, he justifies the double taxation, and claims that he has preserved his principle in this Clause. I am not quite sure what the position of Liberals is upon that subject. Do they or do they not consider that this Clause protects the principle of no double taxation? I understand that Liberals have to some extent withdrawn from the rigidity of their original position, and that, although this Clause may not be equivalent to what they had put down in their first Amendment, they are
willing to accept it in full satisfaction of their claims. Whether that be so or not, we on these benches do not accept this Clause as satisfactory. We still desire that double taxation should be avoided, but it seems to us that we cannot possibly secure that object by any formula which seeks to correlate two such disparate things as the annual value of land and buildings, with the capital value of land alone.
We do not believe that it is possible to do that. The only way which we can see to achieve what we have in mind, namely, the avoidance of double taxation, is to compare like with like and to deduct the annual tax under Schedule A from the annual land tax. That is what we desire to do by the Amendments which we have put down to Clause 15. Without reading to the House the form which Clause 15 would take if our Amendments were carried, I can save time by describing the effect of them. It would be this, that where the land was not agricultural land you would deduct from the charge of the tax the amount of Schedle A, or if Schedule A was greater than the amount of the tax, you would deduct the amount of the tax.

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: Schedule A of the site value or with the buildings?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The whole. That, I think, reproduces, so far as we are able to see it, the original Amendment of the Liberal party. If not, perhaps they will explain what is the difference between our Amendment and their original Amendment. If there is no great difference in principle between us, it might well be that we could alter our Amendments before we come to Clause 15 so as to make them applicable only to Schedule A on the site value. That being the effect of our Amendment to Clause 15, I must explain why it is that we have to move this Amendment to Clause 7. Clause 7 lays it down that the charge of the land tax shall be 1d. in the pound in all cases except those cases which are the subject of exemption. If that be so, our Amendment would be inconsistent with Clause 7. Therefore, we are moving to leave out the words relating to exemption, so that the provisions of Clause 15 as amended by us would govern also Clause 7. Therefore it is obvious that in order to justify this Amendment it is necessary to bring
forward the arguments which we should desire to use in explaining why we do not consider that Clause 15, as now drafted, is at all satisfactory.
On the previous occasion when we were discussing this subject, I brought forward some illustrations to show how the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer would work. I showed by those illustrations that in those cases at any rate there would be no very great relief to the taxpayer. The Solicitor-General objected to my illustrations on the ground that they proved that the site was not fully developed. I never said that it was. I expressed no opinion as to whether it was fully developed or not. That was not the point that I was making. I was endeavouring to make the point that if it were the view of Liberals that great relief had been afforded to the taxpayer by the Amendments which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had put down, it was a mistaken belief, because in a number of instances, and I gave illustrations to show it, the relief would in fact be very small, if not indeed trifling. My illustrations did show that, and so far as they showed that they showed also that the principle of double taxation still remained on the Bill.
Let us suppose that the Liberals who formerly, as we understood, were arguing in favour of the principle of no double taxation have now modified that view and are taking up a somewhat different position. I am disposed to think that that is so with regard to the right hon. Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel), because I see that in making a speech the other day at Banbury he said:
It had been made clear that undeveloped land should bear the new tax in proportion as it was undeveloped.
It appears from that statement that the new principle is, not that there is to be no double taxation but that the tax is to be a graduated tax; that it is to be at its full height in the case of undeveloped land and is to come down gradually until it disappears completely when the land is fully developed. That is not the old plan and, apparently, it does not give satisfaction to many Liberals, some of whom, including, I think, the treasurer of the party, are so dissatisfied that they have decided to leave the party altogether. The question that I want to put is: "Are we going to decide, if that be the principle, when land is fully
developed." The Chancellor of the Exchequer decides that land is fully developed when the value of the buildings is four times the value of the land. That is a very arbitrary formula to take. Why should you say that wherever the land is more than a quarter of the value of the buildings, the site is not fully developed? Why four times? Why not five or six times? Even if the Solicitor-General, who is ingenious enough to justify almost anything, can justify the four times, is it really going to be to the interests of the community that you should push this development to the utmost in every possible case?
Does it necessarily follow that the best thing in the interests of the community is that every site shall be put to that use which is commercially most profitable? Surely that would lead to some very extraordinary results if it were put into practice as the result of the operation of the Clause that I am discussing. An illustration was given in a letter to "The Times" some time ago, by a Liberal I think, of a site which was worth over £1,000,000 and he asked what was the sense of insisting that upon that site a building should be put up of the value of £5,000,000. I can see no sense, no justice, no authority for the particular formula which has been adopted in this case, and I shall call upon the Solicitor-General, when he replies, to explain to us how he is prepared to justify that formula. The formula is going to work out very unfairly as between one owner and another. The formula says that the owner is to be punished if his land is not fully developed, and that the land is only fully developed if the buildings upon it are four times the value of the site.
In an earlier Debate upon this or a similar subject a comparison was made between the position of a shipyard and that of a factory making gramophones. That comes back with aggravated force when you apply to it the formula of Clause 15. In the one case you have a factory which can be built of many storeys, which requires no land surrounding it, or hardly any land surrounding it, and which houses a comparatively prosperous trade. In that case the value of the buildings would be a great deal more than four times the value of the site. Compare that with the case of the shipyard, where the buildings, with the
exception of the administrative buildings, are of one storey, and many of them little more than roofs. A shipyard requires ample space in order to carry out its work, yet unless the buildings are worth four times as much as the large area of land which is used, the owner is going to be penalised by this particular formula. Why should he be penalised? Shipbuilding is one of the most depressed trades in the country. Why should the shipbuilder be attacked and penalised because he has developed his land not fully according to the formula, but fully according to the needs of the particular business that he is carrying out on that land? Why should he be penalised because he has done that, when another man who has built the factory which he requires for his needs is not penalised?
There is the issue. It appears to us that any formula, whether it includes five times or four times, is going to give rise to similar anomalies and unfairnesses. We do not believe that it is possible to relate the two things in this way. We believe that if you are attached to the principle of no double taxation the Amendments which we have put down are the only way to achieve that object. We submit to the judgment of the House the general principle that double taxation should be excluded from the proposals, and we hope that we may have the support of the majority of the House when we go into the Lobby.

8.0 p.m.

Sir JOHN SIMON: The issue that is raised on this Clause by this Amendment can be stated in very few words. I think the country in the course of the last few weeks has become increasingly clear in its own mind as to what the issue is. There are some who hold the view in this Debate, and who proclaim it, that they see no objection to what has been called double taxation. Nobody put that point of view with more force and candour than the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If I may be allowed to say so, he seemed to me to be perfectly right when he claimed that Clause 15 is not a Clause which gets rid of double taxation, but, on the contrary, as he views it, it is a Clause which preserves it. I am not for the moment considering whether the argument in favour of that is good or bad, but there is no doubt about this.
Everybody ought to be content with the proposals of the Bill as now reported to the House if he is prepared to support double taxation, and nobody ought to be prepared to accept the proposals of the Bill as they stand in this regard if he is opposed to double taxation. No doubt, when the Division is taken on this Amendment, those in favour of double taxation will go one way and those opposed to it will go another. It is possible that some will not go at all.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he first explained his scheme of land taxes to the House—I think it was in his Budget speech or in his speech on the Budget Resolutions—told the House quite clearly that what he was proposing was not a scheme on the lines of the Liberal land proposals. He said it would be foolish and irrelevant to attempt to make any comparison between them. He claimed that be was putting forward not only a simpler but a bolder method, based on a different principle. I think he was quite right; I have never had any quarrel with him about it. He claimed the other day, when he proposed the Amendment to Clause 15 which was supposed to meet the difficulties between the Government and some of our hon. Friends on these benches, that although he was making this modification, he was not changing the principle of the Bill a bit. I quite agree. He has not changed the principle in the least. If there were any objections to the principle of the Bill in this regard before he proposed this Amendment, there is just as much objection to the Clause as it now stands. So far as I am concerned, I am confident that those who feel that this is a matter of conscientious scruple—[Interruption.] I hope that due regard will be paid to the conscientious scruples of everybody. I am quite clear that those who feel that this is a matter of conscientious scruple and that they cannot support anything so unjust as double taxation, will act accordingly.
The actual proposal in the Clause is, I think, open to the criticism which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edgbaston (Mr. Chamberlain) has just made. It seems a very extraordinary thing to lay down that no land is to be regarded as properly developed by building unless it has got upon it a building which is four times as valuable as the land. That is quite a new principle, and not to
be found in the doctrines of Henry George or any other George. It appears to be a purely empiric test, and manifestly it is bound to work out in an extraordinary way. Let me take just two examples. Let us suppose you have a factory or some business enterprise which is carrying on its work in the centre of a town where land is very valuable and it has got upon that piece of land buildings which are proper and adequate for the purpose of the factory. You may, on the other hand, have a similar enterprise of a similar size and nature with similarly adequate buildings built, more on the outskirts of a town of a smaller size, on a piece of land which will not be so valuable. I am quite unable to see why you should put an extra penalty on the business which is being carried on in one place rather than in another.
This is a plan by which the business which has had to pay more for the land on which it has erected its buildings, and which is carrying that additional burden already, is selected for the purpose of this double taxation, while, on the other hand, the building of a manifestly similar sort, put up for the purpose of an enterprise of an exactly similar kind, on land which is not so valuable, would escape double taxation. I do not believe that is a principle which can possibly be justified by any of the theorists on this subject. I perfectly understand the point of view of my hon. Friend the Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) and others, who always say that they want to put a tax on land and that they believe by means of it they can substitute this tax for all other burdens, and greatly encourage industry. There is certainly a very important theoretical argument to be met there, but nobody can pretend that the line can properly be drawn between the case where a building is four times as valuable as the land and the case where it is not.

Mr. MacLAREN: indicated assent.

Sir J. SIMON: I am very glad to see that my hon. Friend agrees with me on this point of principle. It is not really true that land is only being properly used when it is completely developed if, by being completely developed, you mean when you have built upon it the most expensive building you can think of. It is not in the least true that if you were
to turn the City of London into the City of New York, and put up enormous skyscrapers all over the place, that you would be making a better use of the land. The whole idea that the test of whether land is being adequately developed is to be applied by erecting the most expensive buildings you could put up must be found on examination to be quite unsound. The real truth is that what attracts a great many people in the scheme of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is that it provides a valuation on which it may be hoped some day to readjust the burden on local authorities. I have always thought that there was a great deal to be said for attempting something of that kind. That, however, is not putting a new burden on enterprise. It is an attempt to distribute the existing burden in a way which is more scientific and more fair and if you could do that and take off some of the burdens on improvements, I think there would be a great deal to be said for it.

Mr. MacLAREN: If that proposal were carried through, would the right hon. Gentleman then consider Schedule A being still in force, and local rates on the land, as being double taxation?

Sir J. SIMON: I do not think that that in the least arises, and for this reason. Before the change takes place, you have Schedule A on the one hand, and the existing burden of rates on the other hand. If the change takes place, you have Schedule A on the one hand and the existing burden of rates on the other, but differently distributed between the superstructure and the land. You are not adding a new burden at all, and the whole point of this is that you are adding a new burden. That is why I do not feel the slightest hesitation in answering the question in that way. The issue is extremely simple. Right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Opposition Bench have put forward a proposal which is intended to secure that there shall be no double taxation and no additional burdens as the result of this new tax. It has been pointed out that the present line is drawn in the most absurd and unscientific way, and every scientifically-minded man must agree. The issue is that those who really mean that their conscience is affronted and their sense of justice outraged by double
taxation must support this Amendment, and those who do not mean that never should have said that they did.

Mr. GRAY: I am sure the House has listened to-night to the clear and sound way in which my right hon. and learned Friend has just stated his case, but when we examine it a little closer we may find that the issue is not quite so simple as he appears to imagine. May I first of all clear up a little misapprehension which appears to arise in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edgbaston (Mr. Chamberlain), who, I think, stated that under the original Liberal Amendment the whole of Schedule A was to be deducted from the Land Tax. If that is the statement which he made, I think, if he will examine our Amendment again, he will find that he is entirely incorrect. All that the original Amendment proposed to try to do was to deduct that portion of Schedule A that related to the site apart from the building. That was the only portion it was proposed to deduct in the original Amendment.
I am not going to trouble the House with the reason why that Amendment, which was ruled out of order at the time it was moved, was ultimately changed for the particular method which is now in the Bill. There were a great many of us on these benches who realised that that Amendment went very much too far. The effect of it would have been, first of all, that land of less than 54 years' purchase would not have paid any tax at all under the Land Tax. I think there is an issue which my right hon. Friend will recognise is more simple and clear than that of what he calls double taxation, and that issue is whether we in this House are in favour of bringing under contribution for tax for the purpose of public revenue those great values in land which are created by the pressure of the community. If my right hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Sir John Simon) really is opposed to that principle, then I know exactly into which Lobby he will go. I must confess that from his previous political record I should be rather astonished if he were not in favour of that principle, because he put his name to a Bill for the valuation of land. I do not know for what purposes he wanted that valuation, if it were not for the purpose of bringing under contribution for the purpose of the State the part of that
value which was able to bear the burden. He appears to regard the rating of land values as different in principle from the taxing of land values.
I suggest to him that there is no difference in principle. There is a difference in practice, and the moment you see the reason for the difference in practice you see the fault behind the proposal which has been put into this present Bill. For rates you have a single tax. You have no other tax. The land taxers, Mr. Henry George, the original land taxer, said you should have a single tax for Imperial purposes, and that tax, he said, should be on the value of the land. I am not concerned to debate that at the present moment, but I am concerned to correct my right hon. Friend, and to bring his ideas into really closer relation with what he calls the principle of double taxation. I am not at all sure whether my right hon. Friend is favourable or unfavourable to what is called double taxation. Personally, I have no hesitation in saying that I regard the phrase "double taxation" as a rather loose phrase, but a convenient phrase. When you are dealing with very complicated problems you do very often require a certain measure of flexibility.
In fact I think that this issue could be settled in a moment, There is no Member of any party in this House who is opposed to all double taxation, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Spen Valley will never suggest that he is opposed to all double taxation. He cannot resist the fact that, in regard to motor cars, you have a tax on horsepower, a tax on petrol, then the licence and then a tax on imported cars. Motor cars are four times taxed. To the man who pays Income Tax every other form of taxation is double taxation because he pays a tax on his income and then on his sugar and his tobacco and his liquor and so forth. Nobody supposed when that phrase was used in connection with land taxation that we mean any exact definition of that kind. I ask the House for a moment to consider exactly what is in mind. You have a tax under Schedule A, but Schedule A is not a land tax, it is an Income Tax. Even Schedule A itself is not exact; it is collected on problematic income. It may sometimes be real income, but in a great many cases it is problematic. It is in-
come which is estimated and assessed as being the amount that a willing tenant will pay to a willing landlord for the use of the property assessed, in the condition in which it is, and on the purposes for which it is used, or for which, as it is, it can be used and that has no relation whatever to land tax. It is absurd to suggest that under Schedule A you have a land tax, because you have not. You have a tax on the income derived from the use of the property.
That is where the issue arises., and it is an issue which ought not to confuse anybody except those who wish to be confused or who wish to confuse others, because, as the Bill was introduced originally, the effect of the Land Tax was to exact the same amount of tax on the value of a site from the man who was not using his site at all, as from the man who was using it very considerably. I am not concerned to follow the peculiar ramifications of the suggestion that the site must be four times developed in order to be fully developed. I think that that is an entire confusion of thought. The real point is that the relation of the value of buildings to site will depend entirely on the value of the site. If we take for purposes of comparison the Danish valuation, we find that, on the average, in the built-over areas on the edge of Copenhagen, the sites are 17 per cent. of the total value, but when we come to the very valuable sites in the centre of the city, the average percentage is 40. It is quite obvious that the relation of the value of buildings to site at four times the value of the site, will apply so as to wipe out completely the land tax on ordinary sites that are net at high values.
Let me give a simple illustration. Take the ordinary private house built on the developing outskirts of one of our cities where the fair value of the land might be regarded as £200 and the house in most cases will be worth at least £800 to £1,000. It will be found that for Schedule A purposes in most cases it is valued at from £52 to £60. In that case you entirely wipe out the Land Tax. If you have that same house built in the centre of the city, the value will be nowhere near the value in the site. As a matter of fact the effect of this Amendment is not to be regarded so much in relation to the value of the buildings
to the site as in relation to the return which the property is making to the State and the return which it might make. Quite obviously the only return which the value of the site is making to the State is the return on the portion that is developed.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Home) gave an illustration which was very suggestive. I interrupted him and asked the total value of the building and he said it was £15,000. I think there was £7,000 odd for the site, and he said that it was assessed under Schedule A at £217. There, you have a property valued at £15,000 only paying a return to the community on the basis of £217—less than 1½ per cent. If the owner of that property put that capital into War Loan, he would have had £750 and he would have paid tax at the rate of 4s. 6d. in the pound on £750, and that amount of revenue would be coming to the community. I do not say that there will not be anomalies in taking four times the annual value under Schedule A, but I have examined the subject very carefully, and I am surprised how fairly it works out. There is no method of taxation in connection with which you cannot find odd examples such as those which the very acute intelligence of my right hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley introduced in his able speech.
What has been done here, I submit, is what the land taxers have always aimed at doing. What has been invariably the view of land taxers? We have always suggested that you should levy your tax on the site and reduce your taxation upon improvements and upon the whole unit. That, in fact, is what we are doing by this method. I am not sure that part of the Government's troubles has not been due to their timidity. If the Government had introduced a Land Tax of 3d. in the £, it could have wiped out Schedule A altogether, and we should have avoided the difficulty of adjusting a very moderate tax on land value to a high Income Tax under Schedule A. What we have had to do, however, is by some means to adjust the small Land Tax with Schedule A. The more closely we examine the question, the more we realise that. Let me give the House a case in point. It is a site in my own
town where a garage is built. It is a backward site and the garage is almost inaccessible. It is not worth as much on that site as the same building would be worth on another site, and the return which it makes is the annual rent on what it is worth. But the value of the site is very great indeed. Although that property is paying something under Schedule A, no part of Schedule A really belongs to the site. It is not returning what it ought to return. What we are doing under this solution is taking a fairly simple and easy method of adjusting what was admitted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer—in a speech on which we felt we could not wholly congratulate him—to be a Very real grievance in levying this tax at a perfectly flat rate so long as Schedule A remains.
I propose to give three illustrations in London to show what I mean. The first is a site worth £7,000. The total value of the buildings, a block of flats, is £112,000 and that is assessed under Schedule A at £3,000. It would simply pay a minimum of one-eighth penny under our suggestion. Take another case in the centre of London; these are business premises, the site of which is worth £150,000 and the building £400,000; it is assessed for Schedule A at £20,000, and it would pay under the Bill as it is now £291 13s. 4d. against £625 that it would have had to pay under the original Bill. I will take a further interesting case. It is a London hotel, the site value of which is £400,000 and the building only £100,000; it is assessed for Schedule A at only £10,000; it will now pay £1,500 as against £1,666 under the original Bill. What we have done is by a perfectly simple and rough-and-ready, but fair, method to adjust the incidence of this new tax so that in the case of a site that is practically undeveloped or slightly developed, it pays the full amount of tax; and as the return of that site increases and is expressed in that increase in Schedule A, it gets an increasing deduction from the amount of the Land Tax. So you get the tax graduated down to the minimum of one-eighth.
May I say a last word on the question whether our attitude is a surrender? I do not agree for a moment that it is. Nobody ever suggested that there is going to be an absolute specific limit to the amount of tax that can be collected.
I suggest to my right hon. and learned Friend that every tax that is collected by this House is a substitution for another tax. It is the business of the Chancellor of the Exchequer every year to collect a certain amount of revenue and if you take a share out of these great land values you substitute that for some other tax, and, notwithstanding the fact that he has mentioned, namely, that the man who buys the site has to pay more—I admit it, but I have never heard it suggested that a change of ownership was a reason for not levying a tax. In cases that may cause a certain measure of hardship, but I have never heard it-suggested that because property has changed hands that can be brought forward as an argument why a tax should not be levied.
Under this Measure we have graduated the tax. I would quite frankly have preferred to reduce Schedule A in a process by which ultimately it would be wiped out, but in these matters I, as a practical man, am quite content, as long-as I see that I am getting substantial justice, to stand by a proposal of this sort. What we have succeeded in doing by this change in the Bill is to give effective justice to all users of land; we are bringing in a small amount of the tremendous values created in land. My right hon. and learned Friend spoke about this as a charge on industry. Does he not realise that these great land values are all taxes on industry? It is only the fact that you have never used these land values for public purposes that the holders of them have been able to exact these high imposts from industries. The man who wants to develop an industry to-day has to pay an unreasonably high price if he wants land in a particular site in a particular area.
We are entitled to say that there is no surrender of principle on the part of anybody. I say frankly that if my right hon. and learned Friend is opposed to land taxation, he is perfectly consistent in voting against this and other Clauses in this part of the Bill: but if he is one, as I have always thought he was, who did believe in drawing out of these great values in land a contribution to the community, and as a result of doing this bringing the land into swifter use, let me remind him that it is not only the 4s. 6d. that the Chancellor gets, but that there
is the other 15s. 6d. in productive value that goes into the wealth of the community.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: After the most extraordinarily able speech which we have just heard from the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Gray) on the principles which should lay behind the theory of land taxation and the way in which they are carried out in this Bill as amended, it would be almost impudence for me to delay the House by giving any further explanation. The hon. Member has so effectively and effectually answered the two right hon. Gentlemen who spoke before, that there seems little left to say. May I, however, make one or two remarks in answer to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edgbaston (Mr. Chamberlain) who addressed some questions to me. I should first like to draw the attention of the House to the form of the Amendment that was put forward by the right hon. Gentleman, because the object of it was perfectly clear. Nobody can mistake that, but the form of it, I suggest, if one looks at Clause 15, is also perfectly clear. It is not in any sense an attempt to justify some theory of avoidance of double taxation. It is merely an attempt to make perfectly futile the provisions of this Bill. Anyone who thought that it was necessary, in order to avoid double taxation, to set off against unity a tax roughly three times as large, probably, on a basis which was four times as big, would have rather exaggerated ideas of what is necessary to avoid double taxation. The real principle, I gather, for which the two right hon. Gentlemen wish to stand so fast is the principle that when two parties have some difference of opinion, they should never compromise upon it. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edgbaston surprised me when he suggested that if the Amendment did not meet the views of Members below the Gangway, he would be prepared to compromise.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I said that we had endeavoured in our Amendment to reproduce the effect of the original Liberal Amendment, and that if we had not succeeded in doing it, we would be glad to alter the Amendment.

The SOLICITOR - GENERAL: The right hon. Gentleman did not explain to the House that his party are so bank-
rupt of ideas that the best thing they can do is to reproduce the ideas of another party. One gathers that they have failed on this occasion to reproduce them with sufficient accuracy. The words "double taxation" are used in two entirely different senses. There is one sense in which no doubt the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) used them, which is the well known sense in which they are used in law in regard to Income Tax, that is to say, a double incidence of the same tax on the same subject matter in the same period of time. That is, of course, an idea against which the courts of this country have always revolted. But the courts of this country have never suggested that two different taxes should not fall on the same subject matter in the same year, and the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley knows that it is a common feature of taxation in this country that one subject matter will bear two taxes in the same year by reason of the difference in the incidence of the two taxes. Let us take an illustration which, I think, is in point. Supposing a tariff were put upon steel. The things which go to make up the value of a house or building in Schedule A are the land, the steel of the structure, the bricks, the stone and the labour, and it is not more double taxation to suggest that the land, as part of the ultimate unit, should be taxed than to suggest that the steel, as part of it, should be taxed. The tenderness of conscience as regards double taxation of right hon. Gentlemen opposite seems to have a limited area of application.
May I now turn to the point which the right hon. Gentleman asked me to deal with, and that was the justification for this formula? It is not suggested, as the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford has said, that a formula of this type is scientifically accurate in every case. Nobody would be so foolhardy as to suggest such a thing, but what the formula does do, and does very efficiently, is that as regards any particular site it gives one a measure of the amount of use which the community is getting out of that site. I am sure the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley did not intend to say, though he did say, that Schedule A had some relationship to the cost of a building. He knows, of course,
from his very wide practice and experience in these matters, that Schedule A has no relationship whatever to the cost of the building. What it has a relation to is the rent at which a building may be let from year to year, and that does not necessarily have any relationship to the cost, but it does have a relationship to the value that is being given to the community by the building and the site, and it is on the ground of assessing as near as one can the proportion of the value that four times the Schedule A figure is taken. An example was given by the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley of two cases. One of a factory which was in a town and one of a factory outside the town. He said it would be——

Sir J. SIMON: I dare say there is nothing in the distinction, but actually I was pointing to the case of a factory which was built on valuable land in the centre of a town and a similar building which was not in the centre of a town; I did not say it was in the country.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: I am much obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I do not want to be inaccurate. One was on a valuable site, let me say, in the City of London, and the other was on the outskirts, say in the suburbs of London. He pointed out that in those two cases the incidence of the tax can be different. Quite true. Why? Why should the one owner require to have his factory in the City of London? The answer is, because he gets special benefits by having his factory in the City of London. Unless he does so he would be extraordinarily foolish not to move to the suburbs.

Sir DENNIS HERBERT: But you cannot move bricks and mortar in a week.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: There is no particular limit of a week. It is a fairly common experience that factories have moved, and are moving, out of the crowded centres where land values are high in order to realise the site value in those crowded centres.

Sir J. SIMON: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman mind if I put another point to him? I am willing to listen to the answer. Take an instance, which must be familiar in a very large number of the most important towns in the North
of England. The old established mills are more or less towards the centre of the town. The more recently established mills may, in many cases, be on the outskirts. What I do not quite understand is whether it is the Solicitor-General's advice to the owners of those well-established mills that they should move out.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Certainly not, because I am perfectly confident that the reason they remain there is that they get full value from being there. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. I venture to suggest that he would find that the owner of the old established mill in the centre of the town gets a great advantage from his position, and that is why he remains. May I turn to another point in the speech of the right hon. Member for Spen Valley? He was asked by the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) as to whether he called Schedule A and rates double taxation. With that charming manner he has he gave an answer, but not to the question. He said in his answer, "There have always been Schedule A taxation and rates, and what I am talking about is putting another tax on"; but that does not answer the question whether Schedule A and rates are at present regarded as double taxation.

Sir J. SIMON: That was not the question.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Well, the right hon. Gentleman can look in the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow morning, and I think he will see it is the question.

Sir J. SIMON: I am sure the hon. Member for Burslem will confirm me when I say it was not the question.

Mr. MacLAREN: As a matter of fact, the question I put was, Would the right hon. Gentleman reconsider Schedule A if the policy so advocated, namely, a rate upon land values, was imposed? In that case would he then say there was double taxation?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: That was what I understood. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will answer the question now.

Sir J. SIMON: I will answer the question for a second time. What was put to
me by my hon. Friend opposite was this. He said to me, "Supposing there was the reform of the rating system" —which I had been referring to— "by which you get a redistribution of rates, so as to relieve improvements and shift the burden more upon the land"—he wanted to know in that event whether I should consider that a reason for abolishing Schedule A, or whether I should say there was double taxation.

Mr. MacLAREN: With all respect for the metioulous correctness of the right hon. Gentleman's mind, I am sure he will respect what I say when I ask him not to use words that I did not use. I did not use the word "redistribute." I put a specific ease. If the policy of rating land values in local areas is put into practice, would you then consider you were imposing double taxation, by virtue of the fact that Schedule A was still in existence?

Sir J. SIMON: I am much obliged. I am quite content. It means the same thing, and the answer which I gave I can quite easily repeat. I pointed out that the objection that is now raised is an objection to the imposition of an additional tax, and I pointed out that what is being assumed is no imposition of an additional tax, and what I said was that before the suggested change you have got the burden of Schedule A on the one hand and the burden of rates on the other, but after the change is made you have the burden of Schedule A on the one hand and the burden of rates, the same burden—[Interruption]—I said so—the same burden will be redistributed. What I pointed out was that in that case you were not introducing any new and additional burden at all.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL: Will the right hon. Gentleman be so kind as to answer the question I asked him? Where there are rates and Schedule A on the same hereditament at the same time, does he call that double taxation?

Sir J. SIMON: I am quite willing to answer. Money for local burdens has been raised for centuries by means of rates—I am not complaining that it is so raised—and Schedule A has existed for many years, and I am not complaining about that, but what I think is open to very grave challenge is whether you
should put a selective additional burden upon land as land, while leaving the other two things as they are.

The SOLICITOR - GENERAL: The right hon. Gentleman has been asked whether he approves of the double taxation of Schedule A and the rates and he is not prepared to answer. It is perfectly clear that if anyone really believes, as a strict theory of law, that in no event must a site unit pay a contribution to the State twice in the same year, no one could possibly approve of having rates and Schedule A charged on the same unit. It is a matter of high and deep principle. If, on the other hand, it is a question of what is the best way to organise the imposition of a land charge of some sort or other on a land unit, to bring about the valuation, not to raise a large revenue, then, apart from the strict theory of double taxation, it becomes a matter in which the incidence of the tax should be so regulated as to cause as little hardship as possible. I believe that the Government, in meeting hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, did an eminently sensible thing. We have achieved our object, which it to get this system started, and we have been able to launch it with their assistance. The fact that we have met them is not an act of which I am in the least ashamed, and I hope that the House, in spite of the self-righteousness of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edgbaston (Mr. Chamberlain) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley (Sir, T. Simon), who are so rigid in their interpretation of the correct way in which to carry on the Government—in spite of that I hope the House will approve of this Clause.

Major LLEWELLIN: The Solicitor-General, first of all, criticised the Amendment which we are now discussing, and he said that we were attempting to set off against the community—I forget his exact words—something which was four times as much, and was based upon a different subject matter. That is what Clause 15 does. It brings in the relation of Schedule A to this question and the single land tax, so that those criticisms of our Amendment on that score quite obviously fall to the ground. The Solicitor-General asked whether we were prepared to admit double taxation in the case of putting a
tariff upon steel, and the steel being incorporated in the house, whether the extra tax would come on the steel of the house itself? Of course that is not in the least an analogous instance, because the tax on the steel will be paid upon it once for all, and that is not an annual tax which is put upon a subject matter which forms part of the house. You put the annual tax on the value of the house under Schedule A, and the annual tax on the capital value of the site. Therefore, the question of what is taxed before has nothing whatever to do with the point at issue. The hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to think that ever factory that was set up, even in the middle-of a town, got larger benefits from being in the centre of the town. The Solicitor-General admitted quite frankly in that argument that the land tax which is proposed is going to be a tax upon factories and upon industry.
I will pass over that argument, and I will deal with another particular point which the hon. and learned Gentleman tried to make. He said that if this tax was found to be burdensome the owners could move their factories somewhere else. That is not always easy to do, because the factories have plants which are erected in a particular building. The suggestion is presumably that the building must be pulled down, or put to some other use, and there would be considerable cost incurred in pulling a building down. It is very little consolation to those engaged in industry to find that the only thing which the Solicitor-General suggests, when this tax is placed upon them, is that they should move elsewhere. One of the results of putting these factories in the country would be that there would be very sparse housing accommodation for the large number of workers who would be employed, and it seems to me that the hon. and learned Gentleman was skating upon very thin ice when he dealt with that particular subject.
The Solicitor-General was in a stronger position when he asked whether Schedule A and the rates did not form double taxation. I say at once that they are a form of double tax, because they arise out of the same subject matter; but it does not follow that you should put a treble tax upon that same subject matter, and that is what you are doing by this particular Bill. We have already got
a double tax, a part of which is taken for the State and another part for the local authority, but here you are taking another part for the State in addition. I do not mind whether you call it double or treble taxation. If it is to be treble taxation I object to it. I was rather astonished when I heard the hon. Member for Mid Bedford (Mr. Gray) say that when he had carefully considered the four times proposal put forward by the Liberal party he was surprised to see how fairly it worked out. That seems to me to be an amazing way of putting forward a scheme of taxation with the full authority of what is left of the Liberal party. The hon. Member for Mid Bedford admitted that the whole of the land taxes of this country would fall upon industry. If that be so then the hon. Member is aiding and abetting a proposal that is going to put a still further land charge upon the industries of this country.
As the right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) says, under the new proposals it comes down to the question of how expensive the building is that is put on a particular piece of land. It may well be that the better equipped factories and buildings in this country are those that are built more cheaply, so long as; they can carry out the purposes for which they are built and have not a large amount of additional capital sunk in them. I have in mind a factory in my own constituency, which is only a one-storey factory. It builds a large number of the omnibuses which are running on our streets in London, and it has a considerable area of land arount it. I am glad to think that that company runs a large playing field, as well as recreation grounds, for the men whom it employs there. The whole of that is, of course, one land unit, and, even under the amended Clause which excludes sports grounds, it cannot be expected that the Commissioners will say that the whole of that land unit is a sports ground. The result would be that it would pay that factory well to sell off all the ground which it at present uses for sports grounds. The Solicitor-General smiles, but does he think that the Commissioners can really divide a land unit up in that way? Certainly there is no such provision in the Clause as it at present
stands. Therefore, it will certainly pay that factory to sell off this land, which is really surplus from the point of view of direct production, and then it may be able to get down its Schedule A assessment so that it will pay a tax of one-eighth of a penny instead of a penny in the pound.
9.0 p.m.
We are criticised about our rigid principles in regard to double taxation and our conscientious objections to it, but it was not we who first of all put this upon a conscientious basis; it was the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), who, when invigorated with the air of Scotland, first started to put this question upon conscientious lines. I must say that the present position of the Liberal party rather reminds me of the young girl who came back to her mother after a very unfortunate incident, after having had a child which was fatherless, and who said, when asked by her mother why it was, "It is all right, mother, it is only a very little one." It seems to me that the Liberal party to-day are excusing their attitude here on exactly the same principle, that, after all, this one-eighth of a penny in the pound is only very small. That is the excuse, at any rate, that they give here to the Mother of Parliaments, and I suppose it is the excuse that they will give to the constituencies which sent them here. For our part, we object to the whole of this double taxation, and we object more particularly when we find that it is going to operate as unfairly as we believe this amended Clause of the Government will operate with respect to various houses in this country. It seems to me to be absolutely fortuitous whether a house happens to have that value which will bring it suddenly down to a tax of one-eighth of the taxation of the house or factory next-door. If a tax like this offends a large number of people, and if there is no reason for making a difference between one house and another, that is a reason why such a proposal should not receive the sanction of this House. Perhaps it is impossible to hope, now that the Solicitor-General has dealt so kindly with his Liberal colleagues, but, apart from that, I had hoped that those who put this double taxation on conscientious grounds would at any rate consider that those grounds should not be
entirely abandoned when it seemed inconvenient to them to adopt them by their votes in this House.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS: I desire to refer in particular to one point that was made by the Solicitor-General. Although I have the greatest admiration for the way in which he has conducted the Debates in this Chamber and upstairs since he became a Member of the House, I must say that I do not think he has quite the knowledge of factory sites, and the reasons why they are there, that he has of the law and of procedure in the House of Commons. When he said that factories which were in the centre of cities would not remain there unless they had very good reason for doing so, and it was to their advantage, I could not help entirely-disagreeing with him. In many cases these older factories in the centre of cities are divorced from railway and canal accommodation. They are carrying on their business where they were built, probably many years ago, and they are getting no more value from the name of the towns in which they are than if they were new factories on the outskirts, where there were railway or canal facilities, and where the land may have been cheaper than that on which they were originally built. They are there because they were put there—[Interruption]—before they were in the centre of a city. They were put there, perfectly rightly and properly, by the people who were developing the town at that time, and they cannot possibly afford to move. If they were to move, they would have to scrap all the bricks, mortar and machinery that they have, and would have to put up new buildings on the outskirts, which at the present time is absolutely impossible for them.
I do not think that hon. Members opposite realise the terrible position in which most industrialists in this country are at the present time. They are entirely unable to raise money for new buildings. [Interruption.] The Solicitor-General seems to be taking all his information on these matters from the hon. Member who is the one-taxer. It is very difficult to speak when these committee meetings are going on on the other side of the House. The fact does remain, although hon. Members opposite may not realise it, that in many big industrial centres
in the north the lactones, works and mills have no spare cash whatsoever for rebuilding. Most of them, I say quite frankly, are in the hands of their bankers. They are carrying on on the good will of their bankers, or because the bankers cannot afford to let them go. Good will does not enter much into business, and probably it is because the bankers cannot afford to see the companies crash. The fact remains that they have not the money themselves to go outside, where they could probably find more convenient sites, with railways or waterways, which would help them to bring in their raw materials and get away their finished product.
Can they go to the public and raise money at the present time? No, because there is no confidence whatever in this country, largely because of the present Government. It is really wicked to say that these people have any advantage whatever from being in the centre of the town. I say that it is a disadvantage, because it is the name of the town that carries on. If they say that their goods come from Sheffield, it does not matter whether they are in the middle or on the outskirts of Sheffield; the town name remains equally good. Speaking particularly of the city which I represent at the present time, if these premises were pulled down and money could be found for rebuilding, there is no one who would come in and buy these sites in the centre and build upon them, because of the wretched condition to which our poor city has been reduced. This tax will be a further burden upon overburdened industry.
There is another point about double taxation on which I feel very strongly indeed, and which has never been answered by the Solicitor-General or his allies, and that is the question of the double taxation on ground rents, feu duties or chief rents, whether in Yorkshire, Lancashire or Scotland. You have these investments which have been made, not by the people who have developed the land, but by people who have purchased the right to receive ground rents for 800 years as an investment in the open market in competition with Consols, or Great Western debentures, or anything else. They pay their Income Tax and their Super-tax upon it, and yet under this proposal they
will have to pay double taxation upon their investment. If they had bought Consols, they would have paid 4s. 6d. in the pound. If they bought ground rents, they would have to pay an extra 2½d. Income Tax. I remember the outcry in 1904 when the Income Tax was put up 2d. in the pound. It was then an important matter, but it is not a question of the amount. It is a question of this extra Income Tax on ground rents of 2½d. in the pound, for which there is absolutely no justification in, fairness whatever. That has never been answered by the allies of the Government below the Gangway. The eighth of a penny is a nominal tax put on in order to get this through and if, through the action of the allies of the Government, in a short time they become independent of their allies by an election or two, what is to prevent the eighth of a penny becoming a penny or twopence? And they will have sold the pass.

Mr. ATKINSON: I should like to give my answer to one or two questions that have been asked. To my mind, beyond all question we already have double taxation of land if buildings are upon it, and I do not suppose that any party who has the pleasure of paying those taxes has the faintest doubt about that. May I point, out why I think at is so unfair even as it is? Supposing you have a house on a plot of land which happens to be your own. You pay two taxes assessed in precisely the same way already. You are assessed under Schedule A on the annual value and you are rated, again on the same basis, upon the annual value or, to be strictly correct, on what a hypothetical tenant would pay and, whether you are in fact getting any income out of the house or land or not, you still pay. I was fool enough a few years ago to buy a small house on the river front. It is furnished. For two years I have been trying to let it, but I cannot. Does that make any difference? I am assessed under Schedule A and have to pay on the theoretical annual value of the house and land although it brings in nothing at all. Again, I am rated on the same hypothetical value. If I had put that £1,200 into some investment, I should only be assessed once on what it brings in. If the investment ceases to pay, I should not pay at all. You only pay Income Tax on it if, in fact, it brings in
an income. Therefore, already land and buildings are in this unfortunate position that, whether they bring anything in or not, they are taxed twice as compared with other investments which are only taxed once, and only then if, in fact, they bring in a return.
You are going to pick out these two forms of property and put an extra tax on one of them. In other words, land is going to be taxed three times. There is nothing else that is taxed even twice. This talk about motor cars is futility. You pay a tax on the petrol and you pay your licence duty on the car. That is called double taxation. To my mind, it is not so at all. It is not a tax on the same thing. The Solicitor-General actually, in a serious Debate, talks of a tariff on steel and calls it another instance of double taxation. It is a purely optional thing. You are not bound to use the imported steel, to begin with. If it is paid, it is only paid once and for all time, and it has not yet been proved that the purchaser pays that tax and not the producer. Many of the best authorities believe it is divided. But to suggest, with a pleasant smile, that that is a fair analogy to this taxation year by year upon something which is already subject to double taxation is, to my mind, rather futile. Then an hon. Member below the Gangway actually said, with such emphasis that hon. Members opposite seemed to think it must be true, that Schedule A is not a tax upon land at all, but upon what is got out of it. Surely it is just as much a tax upon land as your Income Tax is upon your investments. There it is not a tax upon the capital value of your investment, but upon the income that you get out of it. So here your Schedule A is in precisely the same way a tax upon the income that you get out of it, or are supposed to get out of it, and there is no conceivable difference of principle at all between the taxation of investments and the taxation of land under Schedule A.
The last speaker referred to the position of rent charges on chief rents. I am not quite sure that the real position there is fully appreciated by everyone. There are two kinds of rent issuing out of land. There is the rent which we commonly speak of as the rent charge, which is paid under a long lease—say 999 years. There is also the rent, which is, I think, more properly called the chief
rent, which is payable in perpetuity. In Cheshire it has never been the custom to lease land for long periods. It is sold in fee but subject to a perpetual annual rent, precisely the same figure that you would be paying if it had been leased for 999 years. As far as I can see, it is only the rent that is payable under the lease that is taxable. At any rate, there is no power on the man who owns the land to make any deduction in respect of a chief rent. If he is paying a rent under a 999 years lease, he is given power to deduct the proportionate part from the rent that he is paid, but, if he holds the land in perpetuity subject to chief rent, there is no power to deduct at all, and I cannot make out from this Bill whether, in valuing the land in the case of it being subject to a chief rent, that is a matter which the valuer is permitted to take into consideration in getting at the value. In trying to arrive at the real value of land which is subject to a chief rent, any valuer would say, "This land is subject to a perpetual payment of so much and that must come into consideration in fixing the value."
We are told in one of the Schedules what matters are to be considered, and cheap rent is not mentioned as one of them. At the same time, I think the Solicitor-General ought, if he has not already done so, to give his mind to that point and make it clear whether it is a matter which is to be considered. If it is not, the man who holds land subject to a chief rent is in an unfortunate position compared with his neighbour who may hold land under a 999 years' lease. In the one case the payer can deduct from the rent charge, and in the other he cannot. That seems to be an obvious injustice which I do not think was ever intended, and it is one which ought to be put right. I do not think for a moment that it can be disputed that we have already double taxation upon land and buildings, and that they are the only forms of property which are in truth subject to double taxation, and this proposal will impose a third tax upon what is already subject to two taxes.

Captain BOURNE: The Amendment which has been moved by my right hon. Friend raises a very much more important point than some of the speeches to which I have recently listened would lead the
House to believe. When he introduced The Financial Resolution on which this particular part of the Finance Bill was founded, the Chancellor of the Exchequer used these words:
The taxation of land values may be described as a rent paid to the community for the use of the land, a contribution to the needs of the community by whose existence the value of the land has been so largely created. That is our ease for the proposals I shall now describe. In a sentence we are asking the landowner to 'render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's.' "—[OFFICIAL REPOST, 4th May, 1931; col. 51, Vol. 252.]
That, as I understand it, is an entirely different attitude towards land taxation from that which has been taken up for a good many years by hon. Members who sit below the Gangway. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is in effect taking up the position that private ownership of land is wrong. He is attempting to differentiate between other forms of investment, and to say that because an individual owns land he is to be liable to a special tax. Hon. Members below the Gangway, as I understand their proposal, have always argued that where it can be shown that an increase in land value is due to the positive action of the community, it is only fair that some of that increased value should come back to the community by way of taxation. The two propositions are completely incompatible. I do not believe that hon. Members of the Liberal party have ever argued that the possession of land in itself is wrong, or that because a man owns land, just as he may own Consols, War Loan, industrial shares or any other form of security, he should for that reason be liable to special taxation over and above the ordinary taxation payable by individuals in this country. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, as I understood his speech on the Financial Resolution, and I have seen some hon. Members behind him support him with enthusiasm, is of opinion that land should not be in private possession, and, accordingly, he proposes to put an extra tax upon it in order to clarify the position and penalise the landowner simply because he is a landowner. Those two positions are absolutely incompatible. You may juggle with Schedule A and may say that a certain amount under Schedule A should be deducted from the
tax in order to lessen the burden, but you will not, merely by doing that, get over the point of difficulty.
There is nothing in the proposals of the Government, even in the new Clause 15 which was introduced as a result of an agreement come to last week, that puts this tax upon a purely increment value. I have listened to a very great deal of the Debate on Part III of this Bill, and it seems to me that a very large number of hon. Members on all sides of the House have argued entirely on the grounds of increment duty, and have not attempted to state the actual principle underlying the tax which the Government are bringing before them. The governing principle is that private ownership is wrong. The arguments of many hon. and right hon. Members to whom I have listened have not been that private ownership of land is wrong, but that in certain specific cases landowners have secured very large advantages, due to circumstances over which the landlords themselves have had little or no control, and where the advantage has come either from the action of the community or perhaps from the improvement by some public authority or some public company, such as a railway company in building a line in close proximity to their land, and thereby making it possible to utilise the land for building or other developments.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), in speaking on the new Clause 15, largely based his argument upon the fact that in certain cases the site value of property had risen enormously higher than its development value. His argument was really an argument in favour of Increment Duty. He was not arguing on principle and did not, as far as I heard his speech, attempt to defend the principle, that the ownership of land in itself is wrong and that the land should be the object of taxation. If you apply that principle to land, why should you not apply it to any other form of interest bearing or private security? I cannot see any logic in arguments being put forward by any hon. Member that land in itself is such a very peculiar investment, and must be treated on totally different grounds from anything else. The man who invests his money in some industrial company, such as a company
for the production of gramophones, owes no small amount of his income, if that company is successful, to the mere presence of the community. If it were not for the community, there would be very little demand for gramophones. If it were not for the expenditure by the community on education, there would be still less demand for gramophones. The argument put forward by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, supported by some, if not very many hon. Members, is in favour of taxation, and the penal taxation of any security of any sort or kind which may be held in any private interest.
That is the Socialist's point of view, and, from their point of view, I can understand the Government's wish to defend it, and I congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon the extreme skill with which he has maintained the principle, while apparently making a concession to hon. Members below the Gangway which in itself is doubtful, and can easily be undone by any future Parliament. The concession he has given is small. The tax is reduced in certain cases. It is easy, and will remain very easy, for a future. Socialist Government to raise the tax from one-eighth of a penny to any sum which they may think desirable. There is only one way in which the principle, for which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon has contended so eloquently, can be carried out. You can do it by capitalising your Schedule A value and deducting it from your assessment of tax. That is not the method of the Government. The Government are far more subtle. They have moved a Clause which, apparently, gives something, but which, in fact, is merely a temporary surrender of a principle, and which preserves intact the principle that land, as such, is to be taxed. That is to be the beginning and the ending of this part of the Act. It does not make one single concession to the theory that site value is something in which the community has a right. I congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer again, and I only hope that when people come to discover what has happened they will realise that the Government has won again and that the Liberals have suffered badly in trying to deal with the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR: I do not desire to give a silent vote on the Amendment, because I am anxious that the House should realise the position of those of us who have taken a very strong view as to the effect of double taxation, and that we should explain the reasons for our vote. I have been endeavouring to ascertain quite clearly what the purpose of the Amendment is. It is a little involved, because it is raised on a consequential Amendment, and if I am in order I should like to read to the House the effect of the Amendment as I understand it. If the words of the consequential Amendment are inserted the effect would be to make Clause 15 read:
For the purpose of the charge of the tax, the amount levied in respect of every land unit not being a unit comprising agricultural land shall be reduced by the amount of Income Tax levied thereon under Schedule A of the Income Tax Act of 1918.
I think that is the effect. That is the view which I have always understood was the view of the Liberal party. Let us compare the Amendment with the words used by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) at Edinburgh. He stated on that occasion:
It is one of the things we discussed as a party and quite unanimously decided that if you are to charge the 1d. tax you must deduct the tax already levied on the site under Schedule A.
That seems to me precisely what the Amendment will do. The view that is expressed with regard to double taxation is the view which was very strongly held by the right hon. Gentleman and other members of the party. I am not at all impressed with the speech made by the hon. Member for Mid Bedford (Mr. Milner Gray), in which he seemed to be arguing against the idea that there was anything wrong in double taxation. The whole point, as I understand it, of the Amendment put down by the Liberal party was to avoid double taxation, and when we listened the other day to the Chancellor of the Excheque he informed us quite definitely that the attitude of the Labour party was that this is to be a special and an additional tax, and if you like a double tax.

Mr. P. SNOWDEN: The Liberal party.

Mr. MILLAR: I am using the words which the right hon. Gentleman used. Let me quote them.
Therefore, we get a tax upon every site value varying according to the degree of development. It will be a special tax, an additional tax and if you like a double tax."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th June, 1931; col. 540, Vol. 254.]
I am quite certain that was not the view which the Liberal party maintained. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs in his own speech said:
It may be said that we have departed from a certain principle to a certain extent."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th June 1931; col. 542, Vol. 254.]
I am bound to say that I think the country is very confused by the matter, and as far as I can judge the departure is one which is causing very grave anxiety in the minds of many people in connection with the effect of the new Clause. I cannot myself justify the one-eighth of a penny as being an additional tax which should be imposed upon all lands, irrespectively. It seems to me to violate the principle itself. The right hon. Gentleman made it perfectly clear that successive Governments would know how to use that one-eighth of a penny. With regard to the principle which has been adopted in the earlier part of the Amendment which the Government has accepted, namely, the deduction of four times the Schedule A amount, all I can say is that it appears to me to be an arbitrary formula which I do not think has been thoroughly tested out, and I think it will have very extraordinary results in many parts of the country. The fair and just thing is to relieve the sites that are being taxed of the present burden imposed on them under Schedule A. That is a clear and perfectly understandable method.
I am quite certain that when this matter comes to be canvassed at a later date there will be a general feeling that the only way in which you can do justice to the principle which the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) and other hon. Members stand for, is to make it quite clear we are not imposing a double burden, but really trying to relieve the actual improvements, buildings and so on from the taxes which they are bearing, and to secure what, I believe, there is a large amount of agreement that we should secure—an additional contribution from the owner of the unearned increment in land and site values which
is at present escaping taxation altogether. I have always supported the view that there is a case for the taxation of land values upon a fair basis, but as I understand it, the effect of the Bill even with the alterations which have been made does not bring it into relation with the very principles we have stood for in regard to the taxation of land values. I am certain that that view prevails in many quarters. For example, the members of the Scottish Land Values League have sent a circular to hon. Members pointing out how far the Measure departs from their views. I have found that also to be the view of others who are keenly interested in the movement. I feel that the results of this proposal which would involve double taxation of this character would be to injure the movement which the hon. Member for Burslem and others in this House have stood for. I would like to see justice done, and I think a fuller measure of justice would be done under the Bill by relieving the site value from the present burden of taxation which it bears under Schedule A. For these reasons I intend to support the Amendment.

Mr. MacLAREN: The Debate this afternoon has been one of the most interesting Debates I have ever listened to in this Chamber. We may say it was the first time that one ever heard a Debate coming down to the ground level of sound economic reasoning. I am afraid the right hon. Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) has met with rather disastrous results, although with some things that he said I quite agree. The new development which seems to be taking place is this: For years those of us who advocated this policy in the ranks of the Liberal party advocated it without any qualifications or subtractions from the principles governing its operations. Not on one Liberal platform, but on many, have I opposed hon. Members who sit on these benches at by-elections, but on those platforms I was never at any time held up by any qualifications. Apprehension seems to be growing apace. Some Liberal Members are beginning to think that there is something more behind the proposal to tax land value than they ever dreamed.
The new doctrine is to put a certain amount of tax upon what they call increment value, but it must not be too much, just a little. They seem to be thinking
that the Chancellor of the Exchequer by proposing to put on a penny flat rate throughout the country is starting out on this penny proposal with a firm conviction that the ownership of land and the profits arising therefrom privately is wrong. They seem to have made that discovery quite recently. I have said that on hundreds of Liberal platforms throughout the country. The hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Millar) comes from Scotland. When Englishmen went wrong in logic Scotsmen had to put them right. We start from the premises that the land was never made by private hands, by men, and therefore should never be privately owned; that all men require the use of land; that as it is restricted in quantity and there is an ever-increasing demand for its use, the value which this demand creates should be appropriated by the community. But what is happening now? The right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley says that this penny tax is not much and will not affect the man who has got away with the increment value, but they are really more concerned about this innocent penny than they are about the amount proposed to be deducted by way of increment duty. Why? It is because they see that the whole framework of the land Clauses of this Finance Bill is built up on the certain hope that in the near future the valuation which is to be made will be used by future Governments, not to put on 1d. or 2d., but to expand the tax until ultimately, if all goes well, it will absorb the entire rent into the coffers of the State. They are far more anxious about this penny tax than they are about the 25s. upon increment value. And they are quite right.
Let me make clear another little point in connection with the question of double taxation. There are only two bases upon which taxation can fall. It can only be levied upon the value of things produced by labour or upon the value of land. You cannot levy taxation anywhere else, and for hon. Members to come here and talk with considerable apprehension as to the effect of double taxation is really very amusing. For hundreds of years this House has imposed taxation upon the value of things produced by labour. Not one tax, but every tax you have levied, hundreds of taxes, are levied upon the value of things produced by human labour, and to be suddenly alarmed about double taxation
is amusing. If the goods produced by labour are taxed not once but many times there is no reason suddenly to talk about double taxation.
No taxation is levied upon the value of land. Under Schedule A you levy a tax upon the profits, the income, derivable from property in land. Schedule A has no more to do with land value than this Bill has to do with the moon. [Interruption.] The tax under Schedule A is based upon annual value, and there is no man who knows Schedule A or anything of the values of land in this country who will seriously contend that the real value of land is in any sense reflected in Schedule A. Schedule A is only an impost upon an annual valuation; the proposal here is a tax upon capital value. How in the world you are going to make an annual valuation factor fit in or in some way become an additional factor against a capital valuation factor I do not know.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Does the hon. Member remember that he himself said on the date when this taxation was introduced:
I want to remind him [the Chancellor of the Exchequer] of this fact—it must have escaped his memory—that it was agreed that if anything was paid by any landowner in respect of his land under Schedule A, he would be relieved to the extent of an equivalent amount if a land tax was imposed upon him."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th May, 1931; col. 430, Vol. 252.]

Mr. MacLAREN: I am glad the hon. Member has put that question. The right hon. Member who moved the Amendment pointed out the possibility of double taxation, and I am trying to make it 3lear that if this tax was in full operation regard should be had to the effect of Schedule A as it is now drawn, but the difficulty is that an attempt is being made to draft on to this Bill some Amendment which will affect the Measure before it has reached full operation. Therefore my point stands. It is quite clear that regard should be had to Schedule A once you have a land tax in full operation. It is interesting to know that while this House has imposed many taxes upon the things produced by labour—you can count them up, and you may have anything from 50 to 100 various taxes all imposed upon the product of labour—that no tax has been imposed upon land, and it is only when
we come to impose a tax on the value of land that we suddenly hear something about double taxation.
With regard to the formula, which emanated from the Liberal party—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—well I think it did. Let us get it into the proper chronological order, because that is very necessary. The party opposite drew an Amendment, which was ruled out of order by the Chair, and it was in order to accommodate the criticism put forward by the Liberal party that the Government endeavoured to draw up a Clause to meet the desire of that party. It is none the less true to say that the formula- about "four times" was originally devised by hon. Members and right hon. Members in the Liberal party. I want to meet this point, in fairness to the House. When first I saw the idea of giving four times the valuation, I thought it was a wrong proceeding. If you take areas where the land is valued and the tax is in operation, you will very often find that the improvement nearly equals the value of the site upon which it stands. There is no question of four or five times more value than the site. I agree that, even under this formula, you will meet many anachronisms arising under its operation.
I am not trying in any way to be evasive on this matter. In certain area you will find that the value of the site will exceed the value of the improvements standing upon it. In London you will find cases of that kind. Take New York. In reviewing the valuation of New York during the War, I discussed the matter with an expert, and asked him, in regard to some of the highest buildings, "What is the relation of the value of the improvement to the value of the site?" He told me, and that was in 1914, that the highest building in New York to-day is only equal in value, as an improvement, to the value of the site on which it stood. I have no hesitation in saying that, in the London area, the same thing would be found, even if you took away the restrictions. The formula of four times the annual value, when the formula is in operation, will in certain instances give a rough-and-ready justice. Allowance being given for Schedule A, the amount of the tax will fit in, in a rough-and-ready way. Anachronisms will arise, and I want it to be quite definitely understood that, if they arise, they have
not arisen in virtue of anything that has happened from the Government side of this House.
I am sorry that the hon. Baronet, the Member for Ecclesall (Sir Samuel Roberts) is not here, because he rose in his place with impetuosity and spoke with rather an aggressive attitude, but with deep conviction. He asked us: "What is going to be the results "and I thought he based his argument upon the illustration advanced by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley. Let me take the right hon. and learned Gentleman's illustration, because it was akin to the one which the Member for Ecclesall finally used. It was that factory A is in the centre of the town and factory B is on the outskirts of the town. We were told that this tax would come with a heavier hand on the factory on the higher-valued site than upon the factory with the less valuable site. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Spen Valley seemed to see a harrowing picture behind it. I should like to remind him of what he has overlooked, that, under the Derating Act, the gentleman on the highly-rated site would get a greater relief than the gentleman on the lower-rated site, because he would get 75 per cent. of the valuation, under the Bating and Valuation Act, in which the land and buildings are included. They are the subject of valuation.
The learned Solicitor-General, in reply, said that the owner of a factory in the town, by reason of its remaining there, was receiving certain advantages; otherwise he would go outside. The hon. Baronet, the Member for Ecclesall, denied that, and said that there were certain factories in the centre of Sheffield which, to his knowledge, could not remove, because they had not the money to remove, and that they were receiving no local services to speak of. Therefore, this tax would come as a hardship upon the poor millowner, caught as it were in a site in the centre of the town, and so poor that he could not move. Let us look at that for a moment. It could not possibly happen. These are not merely theories but out of actual practice in valuation. A factory in the middle of a town will be occupying a very valuable site, otherwise its owner would not be called upon to pay
a greater tax. If the site has a high value, the gentleman can realise on his site, and can get out and get another site.

HON. MEMBERS: No!

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: What about a shipyard?

Mr. MacLAREN: Oh, yes. I am afraid the House is mistaking the proposition of the tax. The tax is to be levied on the capital value of the site. If the site has a poor value, the tax will be small.

Mr. BROWN: Will the hon. Member forgive me for interrupting? He seems to interpret the formula as a ratio between the value of the site and the buildings upon it. With a shipyard, it is nearly always the case that the value of a site will not be in the ratio that will enable it to escape.

Mr. MacLAREN: The value of the site must be high, and the tax will be determined by the highness or lowness of the value of the site. Therefore, the tax will be no distress to the man who is occupying a site that has a low value. If it has a high value, he will realise and clear out. [HON. MEMBERS: "He cannot!"] We are told that he cannot. That means he is occupying a poor or low-valued site.

Mr. BROWN: Take the case of any shipping port you like. Take our own fleet, at Leith. It has two shipyards and ship-repairing works, and it is impossible for them to be moved. The work is there, and the very nature of the work demands a great expanse of land. It cannot be altered. It may be, under this formula, that it will have to pay very heavily.

Mr. MacLAREN: The hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) is mixing in his mind——

Mr. BROWN: It is the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) whose mind is mixed, and not mine. The formula; is not mine. It is one raised between the Solicitor-General and some hon. Friends of mine. It is not my formula and it is not his. It is the formula he has to argue against and not the theory which he is putting forward now. We are not debating the hon. Member's
theories, but what is to be the law of the land, and the fact is that this formula will work out unjustly as between one type of industry and another, and one type of building and another.

Mr. MacLAREN: I will not deal with the formula for a moment.

Mr. BROWN: Why not? You ought to be denouncing it!

Mr. MacLAREN: We were dealing with the point of a factory on a given site.

Mr. REID: The site value will have to be so large, that it would pay the owner to pull down the works and rebuild them elsewhere. Unless that happens the hon. Member's argument does not apply.

Mr. MacLAREN: Here is a case where we are told that the value of the land is low and that the man is caught there. All that I was saying was that if the value is low his tax will be low.

Mr. REID: Will the hon. Member answer the point that I raised.

Mr. MacLAREN: I will answer the point and give an illustration. In the heart of the city of Stoke-on-Trent there stands an historic pottery. They make earthenware.

Mr. E. BROWN: And other things.

Mr. MacLAREN: It abuts straight on one of the main streets of the city, creating a block on what was otherwise a wide thoroughfare. It became a danger to the traffic, which was congested in that quarter. Therefore I and members of the corporation got busy to discover if we could do something to remove this poor gentleman from this wretched; site, which is to be made the subject of tax. We asked him how much he wanted for the land, as we wanted to widen the street for the public safety. He said that he wanted from £10 to £20 per square yard. We made inquiries at the rating office and found that this gentleman was rated at something over £4,000. Then we had measurements taken of the area of his land and the price that he had fixed upon it in negotiating with the corporation, and we found that the land without the factory upon it would have a capitalised value of £400,000. As he was being
robbed of something like £4,000 in respect of rates, he came to the last good Government in this House for de-rating as an industrial hereditament and got a reduction on his reproductive hereditament, and he was then rated at £1,000, although we knew as members of the corporation that for the bare naked land the value of the site was £400,000. [HON. MEMBERS: "Did you pay it?"] We did not pay it. That is an example of a factory in the middle of a town. [HON. MEMBERS: "He did not get the £400,000?"] No, but I will tell hon. Members what happened. Here is an illustration of a factory developed in the centre of a city. The city grew round about the area and by virtue of the growth of the city the value of the site became £400,000.

Sir JOSEPH LAMB: The hon. Member says that the value of the site became £400,000. Did he get the £400,000?

10.0 p.m.

Mr. MacLAREN: The hon. Member knows the site very well. What he did do was this. He and a few others got together and said: "MacLaren is bound to get on the scent unless we do something. Therefore, they formed a company and that company have created magnificent shops round the corner. They have allowed the factory enough land to operate upon, and they are making a fortune round the corner in the main road of Stoke-on-Trent. I will not bore the House further. All that I wanted to do was to make a clear, clean-cut statement of the attitude which I and others behind the Chancellor of the Exchequer are adopting in advancing this tax. I do not believe that any human mind can devise any formula that will make Schedule A fit in in any way that will bring anything in the nature of strict justice in its operations. I believe that certain anomalies will arise, but I want to say this, that it is a new revelation to me to find that there is a small section, I am glad that it is small, of the Liberal party who have to-night come forward in their true colours and have broken definitely from the very policy which made their party great in the past. [Laughter.] Yes, and I know it. I want to say this to them, that if they become the apologists for those who are afraid that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is, at last, likely to
tamper with this vested interest, if they say that they will have a little of it but not a dangerous amount of it; if they say that the morality of the appropriation of land values extends only to the extent of one halfpenny or one penny tax but that immediately it gets to a shilling it becomes immoral; if that is their idea, I say that the new Liberalism is very strongly tinged with the old Toryism.
Let us look at the House this afternoon. For two or three hours we had a long harangue with appeals to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to remove taxation from the reserves of companies; to remove tax from the money which is wanted to put into capital development. I quite agree, but the question that is always uttermost in my mind if you are to stop taxation of this, that and the other, is where is the taxation to come from I Now, when the most natural form of taxation is proposed hon. and right hem. Members object. In his Amendment to-night the right hon. Member opposite had no very strong ideas about land values taxation, but he moved the Amendment with the sure and certain hope that he would have sufficient disaffected Members of the Liberal party behind him to wreck the Finance Bill. Here is an unchallengable proposition, that the value of land is not created by any individual. The value or rent of land, which we are endeavouring to tax, is treated by the community. That is an unchallengable fact, and the device which we are trying to arrange in the Finance Bill is to differentiate between the value of things produced by honest industry and the value of land. It is in our endeavour to do that that we say to those who have been criticising us that this tax will be no tax on industry. We say, and I wish we could say it a thousand times, every time a critic declares that this is a tax upon industry, that in order to do that he must at the same time say that through all the centuries the landowners have been collecting rent from industry they have been a danger to industry.
All that we are endeavouring to do is to take something from the landowner that he now takes in the form of rent. Landowners for centuries have been the single taxers. If the Government do not collect a tax on rent the landowners will do it continuously, as they have done it in the past. Why do not hon. Members
opposite realise that? Is it that their interests are too near? That is the reply to those who say that a tax on land values is a tax upon industry. It is a tax upon rent, and if it is not ruinous for industry to-day to pay this vast tribute to the landowners, if the vast tribute paid in rent, which rises with the growth of population and the necessities of the congested areas of our cities, is not an appropriation which is endangering civilisation to-day, then we say to hon. Members opposite, when they are criticising us on this proposal, why should our proposals be regarded as a danger to the community? Why should it be said that we are threatening to wreck industry, if by our tax we are imposing a tax not upon industry but upon part of that fund which, whether we like it or not, the landowners continue to exact from industry?

Mr. CLEMENT DAVIES: Anyone listening to the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) for the first time might get the impression that that fervid and eloquent peroration was directed to right hon. and hon. Members who sit on the benches below the Gangway on this side of the House, and to trying to persuade them for the first time that they could follow the taxation of site values as an inherent doctrine. Might I remind the hon. Member that years and years ago hon. Members on these benches adopted that as one of their doctrines, and that it is one of their doctrines to-day? It is not right that some of my friends who are taking an independent line with regard to the Amendment which I should have proposed to this House, should be challenged on their action. Their object is the same exactly as that which has been adopted by the majority of the Members on this side of the House. The only question is how that object should be accomplished. Undoubtedly, the principle that the Liberal party has adopted and followed for upwards of 40 years is that sites should be valued, and that sites, as sites, should be taxed, and that there should be no taxation for improvements. So far as this Bill carries into effect this principle, it is welcomed by every hon. Member on these benches. It falls, as has been pointed out during the Second Heading, far short in many respects. It does not provide a complete valuation; not as we understand it, a valuation of the site with its prairie
value. It still has in it some taint also of the valuation of improvements and, at the same time, as we pointed out during the Second Reading, it does undoubtedly impose in itself an additional tax upon the landowners who happen to own the sites.
When the question was placed before us, how that should be met, we were faced with two matters. The first was: Were we or were we not in favour of the taxation of land values, and I think the unanimous answer from these benches was that we were. That being so, were we in favour of the taxation of a penny in the pound upon the capital value of every site? We did try to point out, in the Amendment which was put down in my name and in the name of other hon. Members on this side, that sites at the present time were also bearing a tax, and that the owner had to pay that tax annually, just as he would be called upon to pay this new tax, which is called Income Tax. I disagree, however, with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Burslem, and I disagree with the hon. and learned Solicitor-General, when they say that this is Income Tax. It is not. An Income Tax is a tax upon income. Nobody can say that this is a tax upon income. Schedule A is not a tax upon income; it is a tax upon the hypothetical income that a hypothetical person can get from another hypothetical person, whether you make that income or whether you do not make that income. That being so, a part of that tax is borne by the site itself and, because the site is there and the building and improvements are on it, there is a tax, and in so far as there is a tax it is an annual thing.
What we tried to point out from these benches was that the tax proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer should be preserved as a penny tax upon the capital value of the site, but that any tax already borne by the site or the owner of that site, whatever form it might take, should be credited towards this new tax. That was the form of the Amendment which I suggested. It was mentioned by the hon. Member for Burslem as being then out of order, but that Amendment, unfortunately, was never proposed because, in the meantime, after it had been placed upon the Paper, an agreement was made between
the Government and the hon. and right hon. Members who sit on these benches below the Gangway. That was not our proposal. We meant to have full credit for every payment that was made on the site itself. We were up against another principle, and that was., should we impose upon the public at large another increased valuation which would impose great expense upon the community and would, in the long run, be a useless valuation?
That being so, in order to try to meet that situation, we agreed amongst ourselves that the proper method of dealing with this was to have the formula which was originally proposed by the Solicitor-General. I do not hide from myself that in that formula, in some instances, there were injustices, but, on the whole, through and through, and throughout the country, it may be taken as a fair compromise. You cannot have a a compromise without hurting somebody. [Interruption.] During the 20 years' experience that I had at the Bar I realised it was better to fight for your client than to try to effect a compromise. If you compromised you lost your client, and both sides hated it, but if you fought it out both sides were satisfied. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why do you not fight this out?"] So far as this compromise is concerned I think it is fair and will satisfy everybody. [Interruption.] The only people not satisfied wall be the Chancellor of the Exchequer and myself. Neither he nor I have our way completely but, on the whole, I think justice has been done. I am perfectly willing that he should have as much credit as he likes to take unto himself for having won as much as he did upon that compromise, and I take to myself credit for the fact that from every site value at any rate there will be deducted four times the annual site value for Schedule A purposes, and the tax will not be as heavy as otherwise it would have been upon fully developed sites.

Mr. CULVERWELL: What about principles?

Mr. DAVIES: This is a matter of two principles. [Interruption.] You have every Liberal in favour of a taxation upon a site value. You have also the right hon. Gentleman and all his followers in favour of that. So far we were united. The only question was whether that tax
should fall in addition to another tax or not, and so far as we could we tried to meet that point. The only question is whether that will now work generally for the benefit of the country We on these benches desire to support the right hon. Gentleman in the great step which he is taking in having, once again, the land valued. [Laughter.] Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway may laugh, but this House fought this question for VI days in Committee, as to whether there should be taxation on site values and whether the land should be Valued or not. This House ultimately decided that it should be done, and that decision was carried by a Liberal and Labour majority, as this proposal again will be carried by a Labour and Liberal majority.

Mr. E. BROWN: The hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) in his interesting speech raised two points on which I shall join issue with him and, as the first of these is not strictly relevant to the Amendment, I shall only deal with it briefly. He said that when Englishmen went wrong in logic Scotsmen put them right. Let me read to him in reference to that dictum the words of one of the ablest and most devoted of Scottish landtaxers about the major issue—the issue as to whether what the Chancellor of the Exchequer first proposed, in the terms in which he proposed it, is the best method to be adopted and is in line with what has been advocated. What does the Secretary of the Scottish League for the Taxation of Land Values say? He does not agree with his fellow-Scot and he speaks for the Scottish League, and not for the English League. The hon. Member opposite speaks for the English League, but these are the words of a Scotsman writing for Scotsmen:
The present proposals of the Chancellor penalise landowners, who put the land to the best possible use just as much as it punishes the owners who are holding up the land unduly or making only partial use of it. This in itself, condemns the present proposal and marks the scheme as a political stunt with little or no relationship to sound schemes for the taxation of land value. It is only associated with such schemes in name.
With that I agree, and, to put the whole thing in a nutshell, I agree with what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) in that speech to which
I listened at Edinburgh, and I quote his inimitable words:
The Liberal party has been pledged for 40 years to the taxation of site values. It is an old Liberal proposition and we stand by it.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Davies) that we do stand by it. [HON. MEM BERS: "Do you?"] Yes, very much so, as some of my hon. Friends opposite, who did their best to prevent me getting to this House will find out later on. They did their best to prevent me getting here, but I am here and now that I here I hope to stay here and to be here when perhaps some of them have gone. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs went on to say:
But every proposal depends on the way in which it is applied.
He then explained exactly what is the proposal which we are challenging:
The Government propose to value all land except agricultural land. Having secured the valuation they propose to put a duty of 1d. in the £ on the capital value of the site. That is equivalent to 1s. 8d. in the £ on the annual value. A penny looks a small thing but it is bigger than it appears. It is a penny on the capital value. That is the tax-gatherer's way of putting it.
On that issue the hon. Member for Burslem does not seem to have informed himself as to what has happened, and I noticed a very interesting thing in hi3 speech. He fears another failure, and he and I will agree that another failure in the application of the taxation of land values will kill it for ever. I, too, fear another failure. But, fearing another failure, what does the hon. Member try to do? He tries to do something which is not quite fair. He says that what is now being done in the Bill has nothing to do with the Government, or with the Members sitting behind the Government, but that it is my hon. and right hon. Friends sitting here who have done it. That is not fair. What happened? Issue was joined by my hon. and right hon. Friends below the Gang way on the principle as to whether this should be an additional tax or the substitution of a tax. That is the issue and that is the old Liberal principle which has been stated in pamphlet after pamphlet in arguing the case for the taxation of land values—that if we did by this new method of assessment pro-
ceed to levy the tax it would not be in addition but in substitution. The issue was joined on that principle. What happened? As often happens when two sets of people differ about words, agreement is found by discarding the words and substituting figures. It is so hard to take back words; it is so easy to make a man look ridiculous if you say, "I stand for two, you stand for five; why not make it four?" It is one of the best known methods of compromising when an immovable object apparently meets an irresistible force—I say "apparently."
That is exactly what happened here, and that is why some of us will go into the Lobby to vote for this Amendment. [Interruption.] At any rate, hon. Members opposite are entitled to take their own view and to scoff or mock or oppose, but there is no Member on these benches who is entitled to mock and scoff and oppose. The Amendment proposed from these benches puts into words, read in conjunction with Clause 15, precisely what my hon. and learned Friend tried to do in the Amendment which was in order as a new Clause, but which was not in order as an Amendment to the Clause dealing with reliefs. That was what my right hon. Friend the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs, in my hearing at Edinburgh, said was a point of principle about which he and his friends felt a conscientious scruple, that that, and not this formula, should be the method of raising this tax. It is a clear, straight issue on a point of principle, and as far as I am concerned I would much rather see this particular formula in words in the Bill than I would see what has been done now—this guesswork on arbitrary lines. A man in the street described it to me the other day by saying that as far as he could make out, the formula of the Solicitor-General and the hon. and learned Member for Montgomeryshire was: You think of a number, then multiply it by four, and divide it by two, and the result is one-eighth of a penny.

Sir ROBERT HORNE: As the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) said, we have had a very interesting Debate. The question is one on which he always speaks with authority and
which always lends eloquence to his statements. I confess that as I listened to what he had to say, I came to the conclusion that his speech was the most destructive criticism of the Clause proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was perfectly apparent that he entirely disagrees with any attempt to let off anybody owning land by any fraction at all. The principle which he announced as the foundation of his own legislation was that which we are accustomed to hear from single-taxers, and indeed he never attempts to disguise it; but he really ought to be standing with those of his brethren who wrote the pamphlet which has just been quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown). He recognises in the legislation which we have before us not merely a perversion of the doctrine which they espouse, but an operation of it which can have no other result than that of destroying their principle; yet whereas the fundamental principle of the single-taxer is that you must take off the tax upon all forms of improvement and put it upon the land itself, there is no form of taxation which has ever been devised which will fall more harshly on the man who has improved his land than the tax under this Bill. That being so, it is difficult for me to understand how my hon. Friend, with that Scotch logic for which he claims credit, should find himself going into the Lobby in support of this Bill.
But I do not think we need concern ourselves too much with the general principle upon which the land taxers proceed, because that is not the issue we are discussing at the present time at all. The issue with which we are concerned is that raised by the Amendment which the Chancellor of the Exchequer made to this Bill whereby an empirical method is taken to relieve landholders of a certain portion of the amount which they will have to bear. I am not at all surprised that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have felt that he has got off cheaply after the attitude which the Liberal party took up with so much vehemence only a few days ago. I listened to the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Gray) this afternoon, and it is significant that the chief speech made for the official Liberal party was made by a single taxer. While he was
replying to various views which had been urged from these benches I was thinking that he must have entirely forgotten, if he ever took the trouble to read, the speech which his leader made at Edinburgh. He said he did not understand anything of this complaint of a double tax. If he had only read the speech——

Mr. GRAY: I think—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speak up!"] I never said anything of the sort.

Sir R. HORNE: I am in the recollection of those who heard the hon. Member. He said he could not understand this complaint about double taxation, because that was so common in this country. Certainly, that is what he said. The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), who is still the leader of his particular party, has a very clear perception of it, however, and may I remind my hon. Friend his follower, or one who ought to be his follower, of the precise language used by his leader? Heaven knows, leadership cannot be so easy in these circumstances that one would willingly have a follower of the hon. Member's eminence on this particular topic deserting on such an issue. This is what his leader said:
We cannot assent as a party"—
That was to this proposal.
We discussed it, and quite unanimously"—
—apparently the hon. Member was involved in that decision—
decided that if you are to charge the 1d. tax you must deduct the tax which is already levied upon the site under Schedule A.
That is the very Amendment which is proposed, and upon which we are asked to vote.
If Schedule A is higher than the tax, then we will take the higher. If, on the other hand, the 1d. is higher than Schedule A we will take that, but we will not levy a thing twice over.
That is the very principle which the hon. Member said this afternoon he could not understand anyone putting forward, but it was put forward by his own leader.

Mr. GRAY: I do not want to keep on interrupting, but I do want to make it clear that I never made any such statement. May I point out that we are
not under this Bill now levying a penny tax?

Sir R. HORNE: I do not know whether my hon. Friend thinks it makes any difference in principle whether it is a 1d. or one-eighth of a penny, especially if he keeps in mind the gibe which is thrown at the Liberal party by the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he said, "Future Parliaments will look after the amount which will be charged." The right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs went on to say:
As it stands it is unjust. We have come to the conclusion as a party quite unanimously.
There was not a dissenting voice. Where was the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford at that time? All his single tax proclivities were carefully concealed at the party meeting, and we have them disclosed for the first time to-day when, apparently in the agony of trouble, he was brought forward to assist a settlement which might carry them through the day. Then the speech went on:
We have come to that decision with our eyes open, and we mean to stand by it whatever the consequences.
We have seen what are the consequences, and the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire has told us what he considers was the compromise. I remember the old domestic quarrel in which it was always held that all you had to do was to make a compromise. In this story the husband said:" My wife and I had a quarrel the other day. The quarrel was over the painting of the parlour. I wanted the parlour painted green and she wanted it painted red. I did not want to dictate to her, and she did not want to dictate to me, and the result was that we came to a compromise." The husband was afterwards asked what the compromise was, and he said that the parlour was painted red. [Interruption.] That is exactly what has happened in the ease of this agreement, for it has been painted red. What happened was a complete success for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman came down to the House and said, "The Liberal party will not have an added tax." But this is an added tax. The Liberal party said, "We will not have a double tax." But this is a double tax. The supposed compromise involves a sacrifice of principle on the part of the Liberal party, and
an entire giving away of everything for which they stood. This one-eighth of a penny is going to represent something in the future which will be added to considerably, and as the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire has put it, may represent the whole capital value of the land. There is no question that four times the amount of Income Tax under Schedule A, in the vast number of cases, will not cover the amount which will be levied upon a capital value basis. There is no real relationship in principle between the two because everything depends upon the value which is placed upon the land. There is an even worse thing in this form of taxation. It is very likely that the people who will be most heavily taxed under this Bill will be the people with the largest amount of land where the land is valuable. It was suggested by the Solicitor-General that the businesses might be moved to a less valuable site. There are large stretches of ground in my own constituency forming the river frontage where people are engaged in shipbuilding. Are they to get rid of their shipping yards, and where else are they to go for a river frontage?

Mr. MacLAREN: These companies will pay no tax if they pay an annual rental for the land which they are using. If the land belongs to them, they will have to set aside an amount in proportion to what they would pay in rent.

Sir R. HORNE: I should think that, in nearly every case that I know where shipbuilding is carried on, the yard is owned by the people who build the ships. The result is that, where there are these large spaces of ground, in places where ground is very valuable—and obviously these frontages represent some of the most valuable land in the area—a very heavy burden of taxation is imposed.

Dr. MORGAN: They are either making their profits as landowners or as shipbuilders.

Sir R. HORNE: A shipbuilder who is making a profit to-day is not very easy to find. As one knows, a great many of them are organisations which have to depend to a considerable extent upon borrowed money for the carrying on of their industry, and from time to time have to issue debenture bonds in order to raise
money. [Interruption.] I do not understand that interruption; I should imagine that both the industries and the investors of this country have been greatly benefited by the process of issuing debentures upon establishments and shops.

An HON. MEMBER: Rubbish!

Mr. SPEAKER: These interruptions do not help anyone.

Sir R. HORNE: As far as I am concerned, I have no objection to intelligent interruptions to which I have the opportunity of replying, but I confess I should have imagined that the proposition I have put would commend itself to every person who knows how business is being conducted in this country. I wish the House to observe the kind of result that you get. A tax of this kind upon a shipbuilding yard immediately means that, if you have to issue any debentures for the purpose of raising money to carry on your business, the capital value of the works upon which you can raise such a loan is depreciated by 20 times the value of the tax you are called upon to pay. I know a shipbuilding yard, for example, at the present time, that will have to pay some £600 a year if this tax finally comes into operation. That represents a difference of £12,000 in the capital value of the yard. It means that from the point of view of its sale, Parliament will have reduced the value of that yard by £12,000, and, if they wish to borrow, they can borrow £12,000 less for the purposes of their business. That is under the Bill as it was originally drafted. But these people are the people who will get the least relief from this new Clause, because in a shipbuilding yard it is obvious that the value of the buildings is disproportionate to the vale of the site. No such expensive buildings are put up on these sites as will at all represent, when it comes to a question of four times the Income Tax, any figure that will wipe out the impost that will come upon these great organisations by reason of this tax upon capital value.
What this House is proposing to do, at a time when industry is most burdened, is to add yet another trouble to its existence. I cannot imagine that that can be good policy, and I venture to suggest to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he will find difficulties coming back upon him through the lack of earning power from
which many of these great industrial organisations will suffer by reason of this taxation. I do not propose to detain the House any further——[Interruption.] Apparently the kind of argument which I have addressed to the House as very difficult to refute. At the same time, I regard it as a perfectly fair argument, otherwise I would not have addressed it to the House. The hon. Member for Burslem is right. There is no ground of principle in this exemption, at all, and, when you examine the way in which it is constructed, it does

not begin to have any real merit as a way of meeting the difficulties of the people who will have these imposts to bear and, what is worse still, when you compare the result in one case with another, there is no equality of treatment at all. Legislation of that kind is fantastic and is unworthy of Parliament.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 278; Noes, 255

Division No. 362.]
AYES.
[10.42 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Duncan, Charles
Lang, Gordon


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Ede, James Chuter
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Edmunds, J. E.
Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.
Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Law, Albert (Bolton)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Egan, W. H.
Law, A. (Rosendale)


Alpass, J. H.
Foot, Isaac
Lawrence, Susan


Ammon, Charles George
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)


Angell, Sir Norman
Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
Lawson, John James


Arnott, John
George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn)
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)


Attlee, Clement Richard
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Leach, W.


Ayles, Walter
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Gibblns, Joseph
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)
Lees, J.


Barnes, Alfred John
Gill, T. H.
Leonard, W.


Barr, James.
Glassey, A. E.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)


Batey, Joseph
Gossling, A. G.
Lindley, Fred W.


Beckett, John (Camberweli, Peckham)
Gould, F.
Lloyd, C. Ellis


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edln., Cent.)
Logan, David Gilbert


Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Gray, Milner
Longbottom, A. W.


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne).
Longden, F.


Benson, G.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Lunn, William


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)


Birkett, W. Norman
Groves, Thomas E.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Grundy, Thomas W.
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)


Bowen, J. W.
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
McElwee, A.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
McEntee, V. L.


Broad, Francis Alfred
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
McKinlay, A.


Bromfield, William
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
MacLaren, Andrew


Bromley, J.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)


Brooke, W.
Hardie, David (Rutherglen)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)


Brothers, M.
Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)
MacNelli-Weir, L.


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Harris, Percy A.
McShane, John James


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)


Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)
Haycock, A. W.
Manning, E. L.


Buchanan, G.
Hayday, Arthur
Mansfield, W.


Burgess, F. G.
Hayes, John Henry
March, S.


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Marcus, M.


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Markham, S. F.


Calne, Hall-, Derwent
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Marley, J.


Cameron, A. G.
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Marshall, Fred


Cape, Thomas
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Mathers, George


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Herrlotts, J.
Matters, L. W.


Charleton, H. C.
Hicks, Ernest George
Maxton, James


Chater, Daniel
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Messer, Fred


Church, Major A. G.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Mills, J. E.


Clarke, J. S.
Hoffman, P. C.
Milner, Major J.


Cluse, W. S.
Holline, A.
Montague, Frederick


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Hopkin, Daniel
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Morley, Ralph


Compton, Joseph
Isaacs, George
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)


Cove, William G.
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Mort, D. L.


Daggar, George
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Muff, G.


Dallas, George
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Muggeridge, H. T.


Dalton, Hugh
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Murnin, Hugh


Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)
Naylor, T. E.


Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Kelly, W. T.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Noel Baker, P. J.


Day, Harry
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Kirkwood, D.
Oldfield, J. R.


Dukes, C.
Knight, Holford
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)


Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Townend, A. E.


Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Sherwood, G. H.
Vaughan, David


Owen, H. F. (Hereford)
Shield, George William
Viant, S. P.


Palin, John Henry
Shleis, Dr. Drummond
Walkden, A. G.


Palmer, E. T.
Shillaker, J. F.
Walker, J.


Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Shinwell, E.
Wallace, H. W.


Perry, S. F.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Watkins, F. C.


Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Simmons, C. J.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Phillips, Dr. Marion
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)
Wellock, Wilfred


Pole, Major D. G.
Sinkinson, George
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Potts, John S.
Sitch, Charles H.
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Price, M. P.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
West, F. R.


Quibell, D. J. K.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Westwood, Joseph


Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Smith, Rennle (Penistone)
White, H. G.


Raynes, W. R.
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Richards, R.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Wilkinson, Ellen C.


Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Ritson, J.
Sorensen, R.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W. Bromwich)
Stamford, Thomas W.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Romerll, H. G.
Stephen, Campbell
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Strauss, G. R.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Rowson, Guy
Sullivan, J.
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Salter, Dr. Alfred
Sutton, J. E.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)
Winterton, G. E.(Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)
Wise, E. F.


Sanders, W. S.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Sandham, E.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Sawyer, G. F.
Thurtle, Ernest



Scott, James
Tinker, John Joseph
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Scurr, John
Toole, Joseph
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Paling.


Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Tout, W. J.



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel.
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.


Alnsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton
Galbraith, J. F. W.


Albery, Irving James
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Ganzonl, Sir John


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Gauit, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)
Chapman, Sir S.
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Christle, J. A.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Glyn, Major R. G. C.


Aske, Sir Robert
Clydesdale, Marquess of
Gower, Sir Robert


Astor, Maj. Hon. John J.(Kent, Dover)
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)


Astor, Viscountess
Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.


Atholl, Duchess of
Cohen, Major J. Brunei
Greene, W. P. Crawford


Atkinson, C.
Colfox, Major William Philip
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)


Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.
Colman, N. C. D.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Colville, Major D. J.
Gritten, W. G. Howard


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Gulnness. Rt. Hon. Walter E.


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Cooper, A. Duff
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Balniel, Lord
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Cowan, D. M.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)


Beaumont. M. W.
Cranborne, Viscount
Hamilton, Sir George (llford)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Hammersley, S. S.


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Bevan, S. J (Holborn)
Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Hartington, Marquess of


Bird, Ernest Roy
Cuiverwell, C. T, (Bristol, West)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Blindell, James
Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Haslam, Henry C.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Dalkeith, Earl of
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxfd, Henley)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Heneage, Lieut.-Col Arthur p.


Bowater, Cot. Sir T. Vanslttart
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller


Boyce, Leslie
Davies, Maj, Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.


Bracken, B.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Dawson. Sir Philip
Hore-Bellsha, Leslie


Brass, Captain Sir William
Despencer-Robertson, Major J A. F.
Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.


Briscoe, Richard George
Dixey, A. C.
Heward-Bury. Colonel C. K.


Broadbent, Colonel J.
Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Dugdale. Capt. T. L.
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Eden, Captain Anthony
Hurd, Percy A.


Buchan, John
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Hutchison. Maj.-Gen. Sir R.


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
England, Colonel A.
Inskip, Sir Thomas


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston. s. M.)
Iveagh, Countess of


Butler, R. A.
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Weish Univer.)
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)


Butt, Sir Alfred
Everard, W. Lindsay
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)


Campbell, E. T.
Ferguson, Sir John
Kindersley, Major G. M.


Carver, Major W. H.
Fermoy, Lord
Knox, Sir Alfred


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Fielden, E. B.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Fison, F. G. Clavering
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Ford, Sir P. J.
Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' ft Whitby)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)
Forestler-Walker, Sir L.
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Frece, Sir Walter de
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)




Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Pilditch, Sir Philip
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)


Liewellin, Major J. J.
Purbrick, R.
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Pybus, Percy John
Stewart, W. J. (Belfast, South)


Lockwood, Captain J. H.
Ramsbotham, H.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Long, Major Hon. Eric
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Lymington, Viscount
Reid, David D. (County Down)
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Remer, John R.
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Macquisten, F. A.
Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.
Thompson, Luke


Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Reynolds, Col. Sir James
Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.


Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch't'sy)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Margesson, Captain H. D.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Marjoribanks, Edward
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes, Stratford)
Train, J.


Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Ross, Ronald D.
Turton, Robert Hugh


Millar, J. D.
Rothschild, J. de
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E.
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)
Warrender, Sir Victor


Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Salmon, Major l.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Morris, Rhys Hopkins
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey. Farrham)
Wayland, Sir William A.


Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Wells, Sydney R.


Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Muir head, A. J.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)


Nall-Cain, A. R. N.
Savery. S. S.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Newton, Sir O. G. C. (Cambridge)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Nicholson, O. (Westminster)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Withers, Sir John James


Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsl'ld)
Skelton, A. N.
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Womersley, W. J.


O'Neill, Sir H.
Smith. R. W. (Aberd'n A Kinc'dlne. C.)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavlst'k)


Peake, Capt. Osbert
Smithers, Waldron
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Penny, Sir George
Somerset, Thomas



Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Perkins, W. R. D.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Sir Frederick Thomson and Major




Sir George Hennessy.

Lieut. - Colonel Sir A. LAMBERT WARD: I beg to move, in page 4, line 41, to leave out the word "thirty-four," and to insert instead thereof the word "thirty-six."
At this time of the night our only object is to get as many Amendments considered as possible, and it is my intention to move this Amendment in as formal a manner as possible, with only a very few words of explanation of the reasons for it and the effect it will have if accepted. The Bill as it stands at present states:
there shall, in respect of all land in Great Britain be charged for the financial year ending the thirty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and thirty-four, and for each subsequent financial year, etc.
The tax is to be charged for the year ending 31st March, 1934, which means that it will be charged for the year beginning the 31st March, 1933. That means that the valuation must be completed at the very latest by the end of the year 1932. I suggest that it is almost impossible to get a valuation fairly and reasonably effected in that very short

time. To-day is the last day of June, 1931, and even if the Bill became law to-morrow, there would only be approximately 18 months for the valuation. If we carry our minds back to 1910 we find that the valuation which was introduced and made legal in that year was not nearly completed at the outbreak of the War in 1914. Thus three years bad been occupied in valuing something like 75 per cent. of the land. There is not the slightest reason why the valuation now should be effected any more rapidly. If we allow this to go through as it stands at present, it means that the valuation will be effected in a hasty manner, which can only lead to unlimited trouble. For that reason I suggest that 1936 should be substituted for 1934.

Captain BOURNE: I beg to second the Amendment.

Question put, "That the word 'thirty-four' stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 290; Noes, 243.

Division No. 363.]
AYES.
[10.55 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Alpass, J. H.
Attlee, Clement Richard


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Ammon, Charles George
Ayles, Walter


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Angell, Sir Norman
Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.
Arnott, John
Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Aske, Sir Robert
Barnes, Alfred John


Barr, James.
Hardle, G. D. (Springburn)
Mort, D. L.


Batey, Joseph
Harris, Percy A.
Muff, G.


Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Muggeridge, H. T.


Bern, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Haycock, A. W.
Murnin, Hugh


Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Hayday, Arthur
Naylor, T. E.


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Hayes, John Henry
Noel Baker, P, J.


Benson, G.
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Oldfield, J. R.


Birkett, W. Norman
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)


Blinded, James
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)


Bowen, J. W.
Herrlotts, J.
Owen, H. F. (Hereford)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hicks, Ernest George
Palin, John Henry


Broad, Francis Alfred
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Palmer, E. T.


Brockway, A. Fenner
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)


Bromfield. William
Hoffman, P. C.
Perry, S. F.


Bromley, J.
Hollins, A.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Brooke, W.
Hopkin, Daniel
Phillips, Dr. Marion


Brothers, M.
Hore-Beilsha, Leslie
Pole, Major D. G.


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Potts, John S.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Isaacs, George
Price, M. P.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Pybus, Percy John


Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)
Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Quibell, D. J. K.


Buchanan, G.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Burgess, F. G.
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leit (Camborne)
Rathbone, Eleanor


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Jones. Morgan (Caerphilly)
Raynes, W. R.


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Richards, R.


Calne, Hall-, Derwent
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A. (Preston)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Cameron, A. G.
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)


Cape, Thomas
Kelly, W. T.
Ritson, J.


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O.(W. Bromwich)


Charleton. H. C.
Kenworthy. Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Romerll, H. G.


Chater, Daniel
Kirkwood, D.
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Church, Major A. G.
Lang, Gordon
Rothschild. J. de


Clarke, J. S.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Rowson, Guy


Cluse, W. S.
Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)


Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Law, Albert (Bolton)
Salter, Dr Alfred


Compton, Joseph
Law, A. (Rosendale)
Samuel Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Cove, William G.
Lawrence, Susan
Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)


Cowan, D. M.
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Sanders, W. S.


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Lawson, John James
Sandham, E.


Daggar, George
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Sawyer, G. F.


Dallas, George
Leach, W.
Scott. James


Dalton, Hugh
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Scurr, John


Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Lees, J.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Leonard, W.
Sherwood, G. H.


Day, Harry
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Shield, George William


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lindley, Fred W.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Dukes, C.
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Shillaker, J. F.


Duncan, Charles
Logan, David Gilbert
Shinwell, E.


Ede, James Chuter
Longbottom, A. W.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Edmunds, J. E.
Longden, F.
Simmons, C. J.


Erwards, E. (Morpeth)
Lunn, William
Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)


Egan, W. H
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Sinkinson. George


Elmley, Viscount
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Sitch, Charles H.


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Foot, Isaac
McElwee, A.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
McEntee, V. L.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
McGovern, J. (Glasgow, Shettleston)
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn)
McKinlay, A.
Smith. W. R. (Norwich)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
MacLaren, Andrew
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Gibbins. Joseph
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Sorensen. R.


Gibson, H. M. (Lancs. Mossley)
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Stamford, Thomas W.


Gill, T. H.
McShane, John James
Stephen, Campbell


Gillett, George M
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Strauss, G. R.


Glassey, A. E.
Manning, E. L.
Sullivan, J.


Gossling, A. G.
Mansfield, W.
Sutton, J. E.


Gould. F.
March, S.
Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edln., Cent.)
Marcus, M.
Taylor. W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)


Gray, Milner
Markham, S. F.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Coins)
Marley, J.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Marshall, Fred
Thurtle, Ernest


Griffith. F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)
Mathers, George
Tinker, John Joseph


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Matters, L. W.
Toole, Joseph


Groves, Thomas E.
Maxton, James
Tout, W. J.


Grundy, Thomas W.
Messer, Fred
Townend, A. E.


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Mills, J. E.
Vaughan, David


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Milner, Major J.
Viant, S. P.


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Montague, Frederick
Walkden, A. G.


Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Walker, J


Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Morley, Ralph
Wallace, H. W.


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Watkins, F. C.


Hardie, David (Rutherglen)
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline).




Wellock, Wilfred
Williams, David (Swansea, East)
Wise, E. F.


Welsh, James (Paisley)
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


West, F. R.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)



Westwood, Joseph
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)
Wilson, J. (Oldham)
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.


Whiteley, William (Blaydon)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Paling.


Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Winterton, G. E.(Leicester, Loughb'gh)



NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Llewellin, Major J. J.


Alnsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Locker-Lampion, Rt. Hon. Godfrey


Albery, Irving James
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Lockwood, Captain J. H.


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Long, Major Hon. Eric


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)
Dawson, Sir Philip
Lymington, Viscount


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (t. of W.)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Dixey, A. C.
Macquisten, F. A.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)


Astor, Viscountess
Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.


Atholl, Duchess of
Eden, Captain Anthony
Marjoribanks, Edward


Atkinson, C.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.


Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
England, Colonel A.
Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.


Balfour, Captain H. H. (l. of Thanet)
Everard, W. Lindsay
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)


Balniel, Lord
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Ferguson, Sir John
Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)


Beaumont, M. W.
Fermoy, Lord
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Fielden, E. B.
Muirhead, A. J.


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Fison, F. G. Clavering
Nall-Cain, A. R. N.


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Ford. Sir P. J.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Forestler-Walker, Sir L.
Nicholson, O. (Westminster)


Bird, Ernest Roy
Frece, Sir Walter de
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G.(Ptrsf'ld)


Boothby, R. J. G.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
O'Neill, Sir H.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Ganzonl, Sir John
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Gauit, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Peake, Capt. Osbert


Boyce, Leslie
Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)
Penny, Sir George


Bracken, B.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Braithwalte, Major A. N.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Perkins, W. R. D.


Brass, Captain Sir William
Gower, Sir Robert
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Briscoe, Richard George
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Pllditch, Sir Philip


Broadbent, Colonel J.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Purbrick, R.


Buchan, John
Grenfell, Edward C, (City of London)
Ramsbotham, H.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Remer, John R.


Butler, R. A.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.


Butt, Sir Alfred
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Reynolds, Col. Sir James


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Richardson. Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'te'y)


Campbell, E. T.
Hamilton, Sir George (llford)
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)


Carver, Major W. H.
Hammersley, S. S.
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes, Stretford)


Castle Stewart, Earl of
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hartington, Marquess of
Ross, Ronald D.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E.


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)
Haslam, Henry C.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Salmon, Major l.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Chapman, Sir S.
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Savery, S. S.


Christie, J. A.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Skelton, A. N.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gon. Sir Aylmer
Smith. R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine. C.)


Cohen, Major J. Brunei
Hurd, Percy A.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Colfax, Major William Philip
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Smithers, Waldron


Colman, N. C. D.
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.
Somerset, Thomas


Colville, Major D. J.
Inskip. Sir Thomas
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Iveagh, Countess of
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Cooper, A. Duff
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Courtauld, Major J. S.
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Cranborne, Viscount
Knox, Sir Alfred
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Stanley, Hon. O. (Westmorland)


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)
Stewart, W. J. (Belfast, South)


Cuiverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.


Dalkeith, Earl of
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.


Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Lewis, Oswald (Colchester)
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)




Thompson, Luke
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert
Withers, Sir John James


Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.
Warrender, Sir Victor
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Womersley, W. J


Todd, Capt. A. J.
Wayland, Sir William A.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Train, J.
Wells, Sydney R.
Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavlst'k)


Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Turton, Robert Hugh
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)



Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
TELLERS FOR THE NOES—


Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Sir Frederick Thomson and Captain




Margesson.

Ordered,
That further Consideration of the Bill, as amended, he now adjourned."—[Mr. T. Kennedy.]

Bill, as amended, to be further considered To-morrow.

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (No. 4) BILL.

Order for Third Reading read.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Lawson): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
This Bill has for its object the extending of the borrowing powers to £115,000,000. On the Second Reading of the Bill and on the Money Resolu tion my right hon. Friend explained that unless the Bill was passed it would not be possible to pay the unemployment benefit due on the 8th or 9th July. It is necessary that the Bill should be passed to ensure that the men and women on ordinary benefit and on extended benefit should receive payment on the 8th July. My right hon. Friend also explained on the Second Reading of the Money Resolution the policy of the Government on this matter. There is a Motion on the Order Paper for the rejection of the Bill. My right hon. Friend made it quite clear that the Government reject the proposal that the benefit should be reduced. Throughout the Debates that have taken place on the Second Reading of the Bill and on the Financial Resolution no one suggested that there should be a reduction of benefit, except, I think, one hon. and learned Member opposite in the Debate on Friday last.
Throughout the Debates I have not heard a single suggestion which would indicate that the Opposition are at all inclined to make it clear that they will enforce the submissions of the Royal Commission. In spite of the debt that is mounting up—and nobody would mini-
mise that—in spite of the financial burden which is being carried, I would simply enforce what has been said by Members on this side and on the benches below the Gangway, that the people of this country are getting good value for their money in human returns. It was my duty in an international gathering recently to give some facts as to the standards of conduct and self-respect which are being maintained in this country in spite of our difficulties. While we are apt to be pessimistic, a review of the personal and social conduct of our people, a review of crime, drunkenness, vagrancy and begging, and all the things that show what the state of national life is, ought to enhearten anyone concerned as to the people of this country at this time. In spite of the difficulties, we are getting a good return for the money spent, and it would be an ill day if an Amendment such as is on the Order Paper were carried. I trust the House will give the Bill a Third Beading.

Mr. RAMSBOTHAM: I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words:
This House declines to authorise such extensive further borrowing for the purpose of making up a continually recurring deficit in the Unemployment Fund, in view of the refusal of the Government to take any adequate steps to carry out its declared policy of making the unemployment insurance scheme solvent and self-supporting.
We have listened to a remarkably short speech from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, considering the extreme gravity of the issues involved, and it is some comfort to know that the right hon. Lady the Minister of Labour is to speak later, I hope at greater length. What she does not know about borrowing is not worth knowing. I believe this is the fifth time she has appeared on the stage as leading lady in this tragedy. She must by now be quite word-perfect and have no longer any necessity to read her part. It is a lamentable reflection when one considers that there is not a repre-
sentative of the Treasury on the Front Bench. We are discussing a Bill involving an increase of borrowing of £25,000,000, bringing it up to the gigantic figure of £05,000,000, and neither the Chancellor of the Exchequer nor the Financial Secretary is present. I lay the greater stress on that because I am convinced, and I think that hon. Members opposite will agree, that it is extremely difficult to get a proper perspective on this crisis without taking into account its relation to and reaction upon the national finances and the Budget. It is vitally important that these two views should be considered together.
The right hon. Lady will forgive me for saying that in neither of her recent speeches have I noticed any linking of this borrowing with the national finances, nor indeed in the Budget statement did the Chancellor make anything but the most passing reference to this gravest of all problems and its financial effects. I shall not dwell on the details of this matter. If the Budget had been a satisfactory one, if it had been balanced by anything but a hairs-breadth, if it had not been balanced on a razor's edge by various devices known to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if it had been a sound Budget, this borrowing, though reprehensible would possibly not have caused so much criticism. But the position is far otherwise. The Budget is one of the worst of modern times and the debt on the fund, amounting to £70,000,000 or £80,000,000, when the Budget was issued, and now amounting to £115,00,000, completely unbalanced it and may well result in disaster to the national finances. A very valuable analogy with the present situation in this respect is to be found in the sections of the Companies Act dealing with the relations between subsidiary and parent companies. In this case, the Unemployment Fund is subsidiary to the main national fund. The most stringent provisions have been made in the Companies Act, to compel directors of companies having holdings in subsidiaries to set forth the precise position of the subsidiaries and the provision which they are prepared to make to deal with losses, where those subsidiaries make losses. Nothing of that kind has appeared in our national finances and nothing seems likely to appear. I would,
in that connection once more recall to the right hon. Lady the evidence given before the Royal Commission by the Controller of Finance and Supply Services. These words are of intense importance:
Continued State borrowing on the present vast scale, without adequate provision for repayment by the fund, would quickly call in question the stability of the British financial system. The State has every year to borrow large sums for various productive purposes. This additional borrowing—for purposes other than productive—is now on a 6cale which, in substance, obliterates the effect of the Sinking Fund. Apart from the impairment of Government credit which such operations inevitably involve, these vast Treasury loans are coming to represent, in effect, State borrowing to relieve current State obligations at the expense of the future, and this is the ordinary and well-recognised sign of an unbalanced Budget.
There is the writing on the wall. The right hon. Lady may go on with her junketings and her Belshazzar's feast, but the writing is there, and points to the end of her Government. That, however, is a trivial thing in comparison with the fact that it is pointing to the end of our financial stability. We know what that means to the happiness and prosperity of our race. Is the position any better since Sir Richard Hopkins gave that evidence? It is very much worse. That was in January last. The debt has increased by many millions. What did the right hon. Lady say last Friday in her forecast? She said:
These figures are entirely problematical, they are not exact, they cannot in the nature of the case be exact in any sense. They are merely arithmetical. If we have a register of 2,500,000 on the average the borrowing powers will last until January, 1932. If we have a register of 2,750,000 on the average then the borrowing powers will last until November, 1931, but if the register should rise to an average of 3,000,000 then the borrowing powers for which I am asking will be exhausted by October, 1931."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th June 1931; col. 776; Vol. 254.]
What a statement! What a prospect! And nothing done? It is incredible that in a great business country like England, the financial centre of the world, it should be possible for a Minister to have a prospect of that kind, without taking any definite steps immediately to do something to put the matter right. If the Government hold views which are apparently held by some of their supporters, that there is a bottomless pit from which money can be drawn, there
would be some excuse, and I would not be so pungent in my criticisms. But they do not hold those views; they know better. Not long ago the Chancellor of the Exchequer declared to some of his supporters that if he gave a minimum wage of £4 a week, there would be nothing for anybody the following week. If this drain continues, some day a deputation will come to the Chancellor and say, "We desire unemployment benefit of 30s. a week," and he will tell them that if they received that, there would be no benefit whatever the following week.
The Government know the position perfectly well. They are literally sinning against the light. Two years ago things were different. The right hon. Lady said it was wrong to borrow if you knew there was no chance of paying back. Last year the Government were thoroughly alarmed and appointed a three-party committee. Then there were stout hearts and valiant soldiers who declared that the fund should be put on an insurable basis, that the drain must stop, and that something must be done to put it on a businesslike footing. I sometimes think there are angels of darkness in the Cabinet as well as angels of light. Before the three-party committee reported, there seemed to be a tendency in the Cabinet to take strong action. I cannot help thinking that some malign spirit whispered to them before they took action, "What about the voter?" Consequently, the Boyal Commission was appointed, and it seemed that even then the stout hearts had some say, because in the terms of reference they dealt specifically with some attempt to put the fund on a solvent basis. Subsequently, the Government became still further alarmed, and expedited the report.
When they had the report they were faced with two alternatives. The first was to put the report into action, and the second was to take some other steps for disentangling the insurance element from the non-insurance element and put it on an insurable basis. There was a third alternative, and that was to do nothing. That is the alternative they have adopted. The right hon. Lady-heard the whisper, "What of the voter?" and her resolution was "sicklied o'er with the pale cast" of funk.
The fear of unpopularity is the curse of all modern Governments, under democracy. It must sometimes become the duty of a Government to take the long view, but that is not the popular view. In nine cases out of 10 democracy probably takes the short view. If the Government, even at the risk of great unpopularity for the moment, were to take the long view they would do far more to restore their own popularity and to retain the respect of the electorate, and it would be for the benefit of the nation. Whoever faces up to these problems is bound to lose votes for the moment, but in the long run they will probably gain more than they lose.
The other day the right hon. Member for Bewdley (Mr. S. Baldwin) told a story from Aristophanes of a man who gave doles instead of money for the Navy. I have a story even better than his, at any rate, it may give us an idea. About the same time, that is, about 2,000 years ago, there was a political slogan which was extremely potent on platforms. The slogan ran, in English, "Division of land and cancellation of debts." That was some 2,000 years ago and we have not advanced much since then. Everybody used the slogan and it became such a nuisance that, finally, all parties in the State put their heads together and made it a penal offence for any candidates to use that slogan. That may contain the germ of a lesson for the Government and modern democracy.
I ask the right hon. Lady once more whether it is not possible for the Government to take their courage in both hands in connection with this scheme. If they leave this gaping wound in the National Exchequer we shall literally bleed to death. Or may it be that the Government are secure in the knowledge, or buoyed up by the hope, that whatever they do they will, if they continue on their present path, at least ensure that those who are unemployed will look to them for the patronage and the pay which the present policy involves. The tempter may say." There are 3,000,000 unemployed, there may be 5,000,000 potential voters; let us carry on. If the worst comes to the worst and an election comes, and if the Liberal party no longer support us, having enough to do to support themselves, we shall have these votes behind us. We
will let our posters go out declaring that our opponents intend to demolish this bankrupt scheme and restrict the outpouring of public money, and, disagreeable and embarrassing as is this immense figure of unemployment, at least that cloud will have its silver lining if we are returned to office." I have one word to say to the Liberal party. Here is an economic issue in which there is no formula involved. There is a straight issue before them. There is no need to think of a number, multiply it by four and then take away the Amendment you first thought of.

Major COLVILLE: I beg to second the Amendment.
When considering the question of unemployment insurance in this country we must remember that between 9,000,000 and 10,000,000 people are employed in insurable occupations, and everyone of those workers is compelled to be a, member of an insurance scheme, and the Minister of Labour and the Government are responsible for seeing that that insurance scheme is a, sound one. I think we are entitled to protest against the gross mishandling of the national insurance scheme. In the interests of the scheme, we believe that unemployment insurance is an integral part of our social and industrial system, and there must be insurance if that system is to achieve its object. We know that many of these people have been on the live register and that 5,000,000 have passed through for a short period during the last few years, and surely it is in the interests of those people that the fund should be kept on a sound basis.
If the Minister of Labour and the Government, instead of being Ministers were directors of an insurance company, and had allowed the affairs of the company to reach such a chaotic condition as the National Insurance Fund has reached, they would be removed from office, and why should there be any difference in the treatment of the two cases? The difference between the two cases is that the right hon. Lady not only depends on the votes of her own party to continue the present policy, but she also relies on the votes of the Liberal party. Another difference between the ease of the directors of a company and the position of the Minister is that this is a national scheme which has the whole of
the reserves of the nation behind it, and therefore the Government can borrow as much as they like.
It must be perfectly obvious to every Member of the House that there is no bottomless pit from which revenue can be drawn to make up the deficiency in this fund. The whole basis of our social structure is that the money has to be found by the productive industries of the country, and every step which retards the productive capacity of those industries makes it more difficult for the scheme to function satisfactorily. The history of the Government's policy on this question is well known. They have had reports of Royal Commissions and Committees. [Interruption.] Hon. Members who are interrupting me will find it very difficult to explain their policy to the country. Royal Commissions and Committees have investigated this question, and the Government have taken no notice of their recommendations. At The present time manufacturers are being told by the Government to make their industries more efficient and to rationalise them——

Mr. SPEAKER: That question is not in order at this stage, and we must confine ourselves to the Bill, and the Bill only, on Third Reading.

Major COLVILLE: I was about to draw a comparison. If employers managed the finance of their business as the Government have handled the finances of this scheme, then the industry of the country would relapse into chaos. I feel that it is our duty to register a protest against the way the Insurance Fund is being handled by voting against borrowing for a long period and the loss of control we are now experiencing over the fund.

Viscountess ASTOR: For 41½ years I have listened in this House to the present Government, in Opposition, talking in tragic tones of the unemployed. If we ventured to speak during those Debates, they turned on us with contempt, and asked how we could be so frivolous when thousands of our countrymen were on the verge of starvation. We were twitted with being heartless and not caring. There was nothing too bad for the Opposition to say about the late Government in regard to unemployment. They said they had all their plans ready
to bring in as soon as we went out. They had 4½ years to watch our mistakes and improve on them when they came into office.
I would remind the right hon. Lady that she sat on the Blanesburgh Committee. She was very courageous at that time, and some of us hoped that when a woman was made Minister of Labour she would go on showing that courage. I must say it was very hard on a woman to be given the very worst job in the Government, and it was most unfair that she should be given it. The Government knew, as we all knew, how much she had been condemned by her party for her views over the Blanesburgh Report. What has happened since the right hon. Lady became Minister of Labour? What disappoints me is that she has not shown the courage of her convictions. She is not showing, as we hoped the first woman Minister would show, the honesty to say to the Government and the country what she felt. [Interruption.]
This is the fourth borrowing Bill that we have had. The right hon. Lady herself said she would be dishonest if she came to the House without a plan, but now we know that she has not, and never had, a plan. I would not mind if she came down in the white sheet of repentance, but she tries to put it on to us, though in her heart she must know that a time must come when this question will have to be faced, and faced courageously. I deeply regret that we cannot get a conference, and all agree about this matter. I know how difficult it is going to be when it comes to elections. We all know that the Labour party would promise any thing for a vote. We all know how difficult it is to go to men and women who are out of work and say to them that they must cut down——[Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite know well enough what they promised the electors, and it is not for them to sit in The House and jeer every time the question of unemployment comes up. They must be as disgusted with themselves as the country is with them. Back benchers know perfectly well that they say one thing in this House and another thing outside. They say that the reason why we are in this mess as regards un employment is the miserable system under
which we live. What have they done to change the miserable system?

Mr. SPEAKER: The Bill deals only with the raising of borrowing powers.

Viscountess ASTO R: That is quite true, and I will get back to it. I beg the right hon. Lady to have the courage to put the country even before her party. If she did that, she would have the best part of the country behind her. If the financial stability of the country was in jeopardy, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has himself said that the first people who would suffer would be the poorest of the poor. That is what we are thinking of. [Interruption.] Hon. Members laugh but they know perfectly well that most of them are thinking about their jobs in the House of Commons. If they voted according to their conscience, they would lose their trade union money.

Mr. SPEAKER: It is out of order to go into these questions now.

Viscountess ASTOR: If you will not allow me to go into these questions, could you not protect me, Sir, from rude interruptions? I want to ask the right hon. Lady, for the sake of the unemployed themselves, to try to urge on the Government to face up to it and make it an insurance scheme. Someone has to do it sooner or later. They have had 4i years to think about it, and they have had the best people in the whole country with them. I would vote against them every time, not because I want to rob the unemployed of anything but because we on this side know that it has to be faced, and that the longer this rake's progress goes on, the more difficult it will be to get it back. They ask us what we are going to do about it? It is not for us to say.

Mr. SPEAKER: This has no relation to the Third Reading.

Viscountess ASTOR: I know what terrible difficulties the right hon. Lady has. She is different from some Members of the House. She has spiritual convictions. She knows when she sins against the light. A great many of them do not. It is asking a great deal of the House and the country, and it is deeply disappointing to the many women outside the House who are watching our first Minister to see her, time after time, do the very things which she said in
her first speech she would be dishonest if she did. What are we to think? What does she herself think? What do the people behind her think? They are thinking as all honest people will think. The right hon. Lady is putting party politics ahead of her country and, by doing that, letting down the very poorest and the most helpless, and the sooner we tell the truth and the sooner we have a, plan the sooner she will have to stop coming to the House and borrowing these enormous sums of money which in no way settle anything. It is deeply disappointing and many of us on our side, if it comes to the pinch, no matter how die-agreeable it is, hope and pray that we shall have the courage to go to the country and tell the truth, and, even if we do not get representation, it will be better to come to- the House an honest party and face it with honest hands and honest hearts than to sit there in the miserable way the whole Front Bench is doing, when in their hearts they know it is wrong.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: This is the fourth occasion on which the Minister has come to the House and asked for a very large sum of money. When is she going to stop asking for more money? An hon. Member on this side of the House said that she will continue to ask for advances until there is a General Election. I cannot believe it. I believe that when the right hon. Lady took the job she now holds she had the conviction that she could find the solution of unemployment. When she first spoke in the House on the question, she said that it was dishonest to borrow large sums of money knowing that they could not be repaid. The country wants to know—and I ask the question in all seriousness—when is there to be an end to this borrowing? What is going to be the solution of this problem? Unemployment is not coming down; it is increasing. Trade is not getting any better. Have we to recognise that the country has to vote this money continually and without end? What is the right hon. Lady's solution of this problem? Is she doing the working men and women of this country any good under the present system i I know something of the working people, and I say definitely, that instead of improving the condition of the working class it is
making it definitely worse. It is robbing the working class of this country of their self-respect, because it is giving them no incentive whatever to work. It is giving them a dole, which is rapidly becoming a pension, towards which they have not paid a penny, and for which they have not insured, and which, if they do not want to work, they know they will receive without making any contribution in respect of it. Is this the way to treat the working people of this country who voted for you? The people themselves are beginning to recognise the fact, because in the last few by-elections the very people upon whom the Government are showering this money laughed at them and refused to vote for them. To-day the country is facing a financial situation such as has never been known before. The people are not really working seriously for the reason that they have no confidence in the Government.

Mr. SPEAKER: I would remind the hon. Member that that matter does not arise out of the Bill.

Mr. SOMERVILLE: I am sorry, but I feel so strongly upon this matter. I am a believer in the future of this country, and the first consideration of anybody who believes in the future of this country, is the welfare of the working people. The people of this country will do no good as long as we have a Government who are prepared to vote unlimited sums and they can get something for nothing. If you give them an incentive to work and ask them to contribute a percentage of the return they will get when they are out of work through no fault of their own, you will be doing something for the working class. To-day, by voting these large sums of money without giving them any incentive to work, you are doing these people a seriously bad turn.

Mr. ALBERY: It is unfortunate at any time that the House should have to vote £25,000,000 for the purpose for which we are asked to vote it to-night. It is, however, a singularly unfortunate thing to ask it at the present time when not only is this country in great financial difficulties, but when there is a financial crisis throughout the world. I want to emphasise that point, because it seems to me to be even more serious than is realised when we remember the warnings already given by a respected and
well-known civil servant, and later by the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself. When the hon. Gentleman who moved this Bill challenges us on this side to say what we would do if we do not vote for it, I would reply, that if we were in his place we have proposals which we would put into operation, but while he is there it is for him and his party to find other means and measures' to safeguard the financial situation.
There can be no dispute as to the present serious financial, situation, and if as a result anything should happen which should cause a depreciation in the value of the pound sterling, the hardship which would follow to the people whom hon. Members opposite represent would be far, far greater than would result from any of the remedies which it might be considered necessary to employ at the present time to prevent such a calamity. If it did occur it would cause an automatic reduction in benefit, in pensions and in wages, and nobody would suffer so much as the people whom hon. Members opposite profess to represent.
The best illustration I have heard is that quoted by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Edgbaston (Mr. Chamberlain) which struck me as an extremely good one. It was that capital is like a swimming pool. Hon. Members opposite seem to think as long as you take water out of the deep end the poor people at the shallow end are not going to suffer. Of course, the exact reverse is the case. [Interruption.] I see hon. Gentlemen opposite do not understand it. I was trying to make it simple for them. If you draw water out of the deep end, the end that becomes dry first will be the shallow end. If you waste the capital of this country, those who suffer first and most acutely will be the very people whom hon. Members opposite claim to represent.
One other thing I would like to ask right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench. Why are we in this position to-night? Whenever we accuse them of having done nothing to help the unemployment problem—and they have done nothing that really counts—they always reply, "Oh, we have been in the middle of a world crisis." I should like to ask them——

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not see what this has to do with the Bill.

Mr. ALBERY: I was endeavouring to connect that with the fact that if we continue to borrow at this rate it can only land the country in a catastrophe, and I had hoped that I should have been in order in referring to the causes which have led to this position. The Government have not only failed to tackle the question of unemployment in this country, but have failed to do anything to tackle The results of the world crisis, which they say is responsible for our present position. Other countries are in a similar position, and everyone of them——

Mr. SPEAKER: The question is whether the House will vote this £25,000,000, and none of these alternatives are in order on the Third Reading.

Mr. ALBERY: May I ask whether I am in order in giving reasons why we should not vote this £25,000,000?

Mr. SPEAKER: Certainly, and I should not call the hon. Member to order if he did so.

Mr. ALBERY: One of the reasons why I suggest that a smaller amount should be voted is that with such a Government as we have at present it is vitally necessary for the House to maintain absolute control over this expenditure, and we should give a little at a time, sufficient to keep the unemployed for a period. The Government would then be driven to take some action to alleviate the position or go to the country and ask the electors to judge as to whether they are to be allowed to continue as a Government or whether another party more fitted for the work shall take their place.

Captain CROOKSHANK: The Parliamentary Secretary promised us that the Minister of Labour would make a statement before the Debate closed, but I have not noticed any desire on her part to do so up to the present. In order to give her a few more minutes in which to collect her thoughts before she makes her epoch-making contribution for which we have been waiting—not a lecture—let me make one or two observations. Hon. Members opposite treated the remarks of my hon. Friend about the swimming pool in a very frivolous manner. My hon.
Friend was quite correct in his analogy, and it is apparent that hon. Members opposite have not taken advantage of the opportunities for swimming offered by the First Commissioner of Works. Once again let me remind the House that we object to these borrowing powers being given, for the reasons which are given in our Amendment. It cannot be too often stressed that whereas these borrowing powers are for £25,000,000, which the Parliamentary Secretary says will run out on the present basis of unemployment, at the end of the year. Our criticism is that it is bad enough that this vast sum should cover the few remaining months of the year. What is really alarming about the situation, and which ought to be brought out as strongly as possible, is that this is not the last borrowing Bill that we are to have, if the present Government is still in office. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Hon. Gentlemen agree. That shows that the position is even more serious than I feared. They acquiesce in what is obviously a deplorable condition, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself, and their own financial authorities, have condemned.
It is not so much this £25,000,000 for the rest of the year that is disturbing, bad enough though that be, but the absolute certainty that there has got to be more borrowing powers before any of the recommendations of the Royal Commission can possibly be implemented. We have had an interim report, and it has been thrust overboard by the Government. They were bound to do so. One of their supporters, the hon. Member for Gateshead (Major Evans) during the recent by-election, fought his last few days' election campaign by saying that in no circumstances would he support the Government in implementing anything in that interim report, and the Government have taken his lead in that attitude. The Government do not lead; they just follow like sheep.
The interim report has been thrust overboard. At the best, the final report of the Royal Commission can hardly be expected before the autumn or early winter. If the Government then want to implement its recommendations, whatever they may be, and I do not know, any more than they do, it is obvious that a Bill cannot be drafted and legislation
cannot be introduced in the time. Assuming that it can be passed into law, that would not be before well into February or March next year. At the best, there will be another gap, at the end of this borrowing period, for which further borrowing powers will be required, before the Government do any thing to fulfil their absolutely declared intention to put the Insurance Fund on a self-supporting basis. It is that which is the bad part; not only the borrowing, but the absolute certainty that the borrowing must be followed by further borrowing before anything effective is done to deal with the situation. That is why we ask, in our Amendment, that— [Interruption.] I am sorry if anything that I have said is out of order. The hon. Gentlemen opposite seem to object to the facts of the situation being brought out. I am not surprised, because i£ there is one thing which hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite try to do the whole time—and the right hon. Lady is included, among the members of the other sex—it is to try and hide the facts from the country. [Interruption.] By their interruptions they show that their consciences are uneasy. What they are trying to hide from the country is that the Government, and the right hon. Lady, who is the responsible Minister——

Mr. HAYCOCK: On a point of Order. May I ask how long the hon. and gallant Member is to be allowed to remain out of order?

Mr. SPEAKER: I assure, the hon. Member that I can call the hon. and gallant Member to order without assistance.

Captain CROOKSHANK: The Government, and the right hon. Lady in particular, are trying to hide from the country the fact that they set up the Royal Commission, that they drew up the terms of reference, and that they appointed the members. They asked the Royal Commission to make recommendations how to put the Unemployment Insurance Fund on an insurance basis, and what schemes should be adopted to deal with the people who are out of insurance. The right hon. Lady is trying to pretend and hon. Members opposite are trying to pretend that they never said anything of the sort. The right hon. Lady is running away from
the terms of reference. They are there in black and white. That is why in our Amendment we decline to give these vast powers. We should be prepared to give the Government certain powers if there was any possibility of their introducing legislation, but we decline to give them these large powers in view of their refusal to take any adequate steps to carry out their declared policy of making the Unemployment Insurance Fund solvent. No amount of jeering and interruption will cloud that issue in the eyes of the country. While it is true that at the present time there are about 2,500,000 unemployed on the register and that there may have been three, four or five millions who have been in and out of insurance during the last six months or 12 months, it is obviously in the interests of every man and woman who is compelled by law to pay to the fund, that the contractual obligation into which they have entered with the State, the State should be able to pay to them when they come out of employment. If the fund becomes hopelessly insolvent, and the Government find that they cannot meet the contractual obligation into which they have entered, it means that they are making the position of the insured contributor to the fund impossible by passing legislation and doing something which they have no right to do. They are taking away something from a contract which they have forced people to enter, whether they wished to do so or not.
I am not saying that the people did not wish to enter into it, and I am not saying that unemployment insurance is a bad system, but if the House compels people to go into the fund it is the duty of the House to see that there is sufficient money behind the fund—[Interruption.] Hon. Members opposite mistake the point. If there is an insurance fund into which people are compelled to pay, the State is under a contractual obligation to pay them the benefits for which they have contracted, and to see that the fund is on a self-supporting basis. That is why the right hon. Lady asked the Royal Commission to tell her as soon as possible what to do. They have indicated some of the directions in which they think action might be taken. Of course, it is a matter of opinion. The Government have run away from the problem, but that does not absolve them from the duty
of trying to do their best to keep their contract with the people whom this House has declared to be insured. Because the right hon. Lady the Minister of Labour has done nothing to deal with the problem, we say that this is not the time to give new borrowing powers to an extent which will take away from this House the possibility of dealing with this question again for five or six months.

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Miss Bondfield): I make no complaint of the Debate which has taken place to-night, in relation to the fact that this subject has been before the House five times already in connection with this Bill. In regard to the comments of the hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank), I wish to challenge his statement that we are trying to hide the facts. It is really absurd, because there is no material fact in connection with the present situation that has not been again and again placed before the House. In regard to the Amendment, it is an entire mistake to say that the interim report of the Commission contains recommendations either with regard to the basis on which the fund may be made solvent or in regard to any scheme by which those who are not properly insured may be provided for. Neither of these recommendations appear in the interim report.

Viscountess ASTOR: Have the Government themselves got any definite ideas?

Miss BONDFIELD: The Government has asked the Commission to consider everything and to report. The criticism of the financial position made by Members of the Opposition loses its point when it is remembered that I took over a bankrupt scheme which was then owing £38,000,000. I am not at all impressed by the criticism of the policy which the Government have pursued on account of the state of world trade, or of the professions by hon. Members opposite of financial rectitude, when I remember that the party opposite were in power for four and a-half years with an overwhelming majority and that they did nothing to put the fund on a sound basis. During the whole of that time, when the fund was insolvent, they did nothing to try to add to the income of the fund. I have at least tried to add to the income of the fund. I have tried to relieve it
of that part of the unemployment payments which does not properly come within insurance, to have it borne by the Treasury and not by the contributed fund. I want to say quite definitely to the Noble Lady that she is entirely mistaken when she says that I am not honest in my convictions. In the present state of unemployment, after the years at which the unemployment figures have been what we know them to have been, I would not support a reduction of benefits.

Viscountess ASTOR: Will the right hon. Lady say whether it is not dishonest to come and borrow again unless she had some scheme for putting the fund in a sound position? [Interruption.]

Miss BONDFIELD: Borrowing, when you know you have no opportunity to repay is a dishonest course. We have been driven into that dishonest course —[Interruption]—by economic circumstances. [Interruption.] I am not supporting, as has been suggested, the idea of further borrowing, because I believe that it is right or because I believe that it is a good principle. I say that in the world situation in which we find ourselves it is the only possible course, and I am convinced that this House also takes that view by the very fact that the House itself rejected the Amendment put down by the Opposition to reduce the amount of borrowing. That Amendment has been discussed and voted upon and the House has voted against it. In view of the discussions which have taken place, in view of the facts which have been placed before the House, in view of the consequences of failure to carry this Bill—which not one single Member opposite has ventured to take the responsibility for incurring—I ask the House to give the Bill a Third Heading.

Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLAND: The brief speech which we have just heard from the Minister of Labour has been justification enough for this Debate and the Third Reading of the Bill. We know the difficulties which the Minister has been in and the fact that she has had to contend with her own colleagues, but when she states that she has been driven into dishonest courses, I am moved to wonder how many criminals at the Old Bailey have, before being sentenced, put forward precisely the same plea in mitigation of their offence. [Interrup
tion.] The Minister also said that she had inherited a bankrupt scheme. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] That remark is always cheered on the opposite side. Hon. Members opposite never like references to the General Strike, or the coal strike—[Interruption.]

Mr. SPEAKER: I must ask hon. Members to allow the right hon. Gentleman to proceed without interruption.

Mr. LEES: The right hon. Gentleman was referring to the General Strike, I want to remind him of the general lockout and starvation of the miners.

Mr. R. RICHARDSON: Is it in order for the right hon. Gentleman to refer to the events of 1926 on this Bill?

Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman is quite in order in giving reasons why he considers it has become necessary to borrow this large sum.

Mr. RICHARDSON: The statement was not given in that way or I would not have risen. It was a remark to hon. Members on this side.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: There was one other remark of the Minister's to which I do not wish to refer in detail, if it is regarded by you, Mr. Speaker, as out of order to do so. She said that the Government had not got the final report of the Royal Commission yet and therefore had not had an opportunity to carry out its contents. I would reply that the Government themselves washed for an interim report on which to base some legislation. They got the interim report but we have had no legislation worth speaking of—we have had this borrowing Bill instead. To-night, I continue to voice our protest against the complete disregard of their responsibilities by the Government. [Interruption.] It is remarkable how unwilling hon. Members opposite are to listen to any criticism. The more unwilling they are, the more conscious they appear to be of the fact that they are wrong. As I say, we protest against the complete disregard of their responsibilities by the Government and the injury caused by that disregard, not only to the fund, but also to the stability of industry, to employment and to the country as a whole. The Minister said that nothing had been concealed from the country. [Laughter.] What interests some of us on this side is the
laughter which occurs on the benches opposite when any mention is made of the serious industrial position of this country. One of the most serious features of the situation is that so few hon. Members opposite seem to realise what an alarming position the country is in at present. If any of them have any doubts as to the gravity of that position, they should recall the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, not so very long ago, when he spoke of the danger which existed, not only to Budget equilibrium, but to the whole industry of the country. It was a remarkable speech and there is only too much cause to fear that there is danger to the industry of the country at the moment. [HON. MEMBERS: "What is your alternative? "] These questions are always being put as to what our plans would be. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!'] Yes, "Hear, hear"——[Interruption.],

Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman must not be drawn into getting out of order by replying to interruptions.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I wanted to deal strictly with the danger to the country and with the fact that it is enhanced by the growing insolvency of this fund. The danger is there in any case, but when the Unemployment Fund is going into insolvency at a rapidly increasing rate, when the increase in the debt is greater than the whole of the Sinking Fund provided by the Budget, and when there has been an increase of 6,000 in the number of the unemployed at a time of year when employment ought to be improving, we cannot fail to realise the serious position of the country and we are entitled to more information from the Government as to when they intend to put a term to this insolvency.
It might be allowed that the present Government are in the mere grip of circumstance—and in fact, that has been pleaded—were it not for the fact that they protested their principles after the grip of circumstances had taken hold of them. If an authoritative declaration were to be sought from the Government one could look for it to no one better than the Minister of Labour, the Prime Minister or the Chancellor of the Exchequer. One and all have said—in the words, for example, of the Chancellor of the Exchequer—that it is the duty
of the Government to face up to the problem and put the Insurance Fund on an insurance basis. It is no answer to tell us they are in the grip of circumstances if they made those statements of policy when affairs were very little better than they are to-day and when the slump, of which we have heard too much, had come upon them. The finances of the country were already disturbed when the Chancellor made that statement at the Guildhall. Listen to the Prime Minister himself. He said that the Fund had to be put back on an insurance basis. In other words, the insolvency of the Fund could not be allowed to go on at its present accelerating pace. That statement was made after the slump had begun. It was not made in happier times. It was with a knowledge of the slump that the Prime Minister made that promise, and it holds as good to-day as it did then. There is also the statement of the Minister of Labour herself:
It is our considered view that a scheme of unemployment insurance should be a self-supporting scheme.
That statement was made after she had had experience of the effect of the present world unemployment. It is in the light of all that that we have to judge the Government. An unbalanced Budget is a great danger, but an unbalanced Government is a much greater danger, and that is what we have at the present time. If there is danger, as there is at the moment, and if disaster may come upon this country, as quite likely it may, it will be because we have had plain statements of principle and policy made by the Government followed by a desertion of those principles, a desertion equally motived by cowardice and ineptitude.

Major COLFOX: I very much regret that this Third Reading has been brought on at this very late hour. [Interruption.] At any rate, it has afforded this House and the country a very good exhibition of the inferiority complex from the benches opposite. Hon. Members opposite have been carrying on in a way which clearly shows that they cannot appreciate the gravity of the situation into which the country is drifting, and has been drifting for a very long while. The whole record of the present Government in connection with
the unemployment situation has been merely to procrastinate and to delay, and to find one excuse after another for not facing up to the problem and dealing with the solution. There are rumours or suggestions once more being made throughout the country that, since the present Government have found it impossible to deal with the problems un aided, they should once again make an appeal to the other parties to assist them. [Interruption.] If only these ignorant, foolish and vulgar interruptions were to cease, we might get on. [Interruption.] The complete void in the minds of hon. Members opposite is demonstrated by their loud and vulgar laughter. The suggestion is once more being made——

Mr. THORNE: On a point of Order. I want to know whether it is not a breach of the Rules of this House for an hon. Member to talk to Members of this House with both hands in his pockets?

An HON. MEMBER: Take yours out.

Major COLFOX: As I have found it totally impossible to place a connected argument before the House owing to the vulgar and unmannerly interruptions of hon. Members opposite, I regret that I have been compelled to occupy rather more time than I otherwise should have done, and I must ask the forgiveness of the more reasonably mannered Members of the House for occupying more time than is necessary. [Interruption.] If only the pandemonium would cease for a moment, I should be able to put my very short remarks within a very brief compass. Perhaps now I can start. As I was saying, it is being once more suggested throughout the country that the three political parties should pool their resources in an effort to solve this unemployment problem. But the treatment which was meted out to the last three- party conference or committee——

Mr. SPEAKER: Really, this argument does not apply to the Third Reading Debate.

Major COLFOX: In that case, of course, I am able to pass on to the next point, and I would have done so very much more rapidly in normal circumstances. My other point is to try, if I can, to get a reply from the Minister of Labour or, at any Tate, some representa-
tive of the Government, to the question whether or not the Government have abandoned their declared intention of taking steps to balance the fund and to put it on a self-supporting actuarial basis, because, of course, if and when they do take steps to carry out their expressed intention in that direction, then, but only then, will it be unnecessary to continue this process of perpetual borrowing of millions, and now it is running into hundreds of millions. Therefore, I do hope—[Interruption.]—not with much confidence, because I recognise that civility on the Front Bench opposite is not their long suit, but I do hope that we may get an answer to the question whether or not they intend to proceed with their declared policy of taking steps eventually to balance the fund.

Mr. SIMMONS: [Interruption] I am not going to sit still under the insults that have been flung across the Floor from the other side. [Interruption.] If they can keep us here until one o'clock, then we can keep them here until 20 minutes to six o'clock in the morning, and we can adduce from this side of the House as many reasons for supporting the Government as alleged reasons we have had from the other side against the Bill now under discussion. [Interruption.] Apparently some of the officers on the other side of the House still think they are on the barrack square from the insults that they have flung across the House at us who are of the working class. Some of us who were privates in the War are now in this House, and are on equal terms with the officers. It is not right that we should sit here to-night to hear these insults flung at us and at our class from those benches.
A lot of fuss is being made about borrowing this money. I am convinced that the borrowing of it is an absolute necessity. I am convinced of it by my personal contact with those who, if this Bill does not pass through this House, will be thrown on the tender mercies of public assistance committees or left with no maintenance at all during the period of unemployment. The money we are voting to-night is an insurance in more senses than one; it is an insurance against a complete breakdown of our social and economic system, an insurance against revolution. I remember when the boys returned from the last
War, that they took their rifles from them, and not only did that, but also gave them a specially high rate of un employment pay—about 29s. 6d. a week for the returned soldiers. That was an insurance against revolution at that time. The War has passed away and The heroes of 1914 and 1918 have become The dole-mongers of to-day, in the language of hon. Members opposite, the men who, in the view of the hon. Member for East Willesden (Mr. D. G. Somerville), do not want work while——

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: I never made such a statement. I said you were taking away the incentive to work.

Mr. SIMMONS: I am prepared to leave it to the columns of the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow to give a proper interpretation of the hon. Member's remarks. He said it was taking away their self-respect. One of the leaders of the hon. Gentleman's party is in receipt of a dole of £96 a week.

Mr. SPEAKER: We are getting a long way from the borrowing of £25,000,000, which is the question we are considering.

Mr. SIMMONS: I was merely drawing an illustration that, if £96 a week is necessary for him, then the amount paid to the unemployed with wives and children is not too much. Some of us think it is not enough. Those men and women have as much self-respect as some of those on the other side of the House who come in white shirt fronts and dress coats. [Interruption.] If some of my hon. Friends are conventional, it does

not alter the strength of my argument. It is the contrast felt by those of us who live in our constituencies and who meet the unemployed in our own homes week after week that makes us believe that finding this money is an absolute necessity for the social and moral well-being of this country.

References have been made to-night to hilarity from this side of the House. Sometimes the efforts of the hon. Members opposite are so entertaining that we cannot restrain our hilarity, but that does not mean that we, who are in daily contact with the unemployment problem, do not feel for the unemployed. As one who has himself stood in the Employment Exchange and felt the pangs of unemployment, I could not feel hilarious about unemployment, and it is because I have experienced those conditions that I urge the House to cease this quibbling about a mere £25,000,000. A mere quibble about £25,000,000 when £1,000,000 a day is going in interest on War Loan, when the hon. Gentlemen who are sneering at us are drawing their retired army pay as retired officers? I claim that my class, when they have spent their life in the industrial army, are entitled to their retiring pay like the admirals and generals opposite. I hope my hon. Friends on this side of the House are going to keep this Debate going after the insults, sneers and jeers we have received.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 216; Noes, 164.

Division No. 364.]
AYES.
[12.48 a.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Broad, Francis Alfred
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff. Cannock)
Brockway, A. Fenner
Denman, Hon. R. D.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Bromfield, William
Dukes, C.


Altchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.
Brooke, W.
Duncan, Charles


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Brothers, M.
Ede, James Chuter


Alpass, J. H.
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)
Edmunds, J. E.


Ammon, Charles George
Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)
Edwards, E. (Morpeth)


Angell, Sir Norman
Buchanan, G.
Egan, W. H.


Arnott, John
Burgess, F. G.
 Foot, Isaac


Aske, Sir Robert
Calne, Hall-, Derwent
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)


Ayles, Walter
Cameron, A. G.
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)


Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Gibbins, Joseph


Barr, James
Charleton, H. C.
Gibson, H. M. (Lanes. Mossley)


Batey, Joseph
Clarke, J. S.
Gill, T. H.


Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)
Cluse, W. S.
Gillett, George M.


Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Cocks, Frederick Seymour
Glassey, A. E.


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Compton, Joseph
Gossling, A. G.


Benson, G.
Cripps, Sir Stafford
Gould, F.


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Daggar, George
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Dallas, George
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)


Bowen, J. W.
Dalton, Hugh
Grundy, Thomas W.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvll)


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
McGovern. J. (Glasgow, Shettieston)
Scurr, John


Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)
McKinlay. A.
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Hardie, David (Rutherglen)
McShane, John James
Sherwood, G. H.


Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Shield, George William


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Manning, E. L.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Haycock. A. W.
Mansfield, W.
Shillaker, J. F.


Hayday, Arthur
Marcus, M.
Simmons, C. J.


Hayes, John Henry
Markham, S. F.
Sinkinson, George


Handerson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Marshall, Fred
Sitch, Charles H.


Henderson, Arthur, funr, (Cardiff, S.)
Mathers, George
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhtthe)


Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Matters, L. W.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Maxton, James
Smith, Rennle (Penlstone)


Herrlotts, J.
Messer, Fred
Smith. Tom (Pontefract)


Hicks, Ernest George
Middleton, G.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)
Milner, Major J.
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Montague, Frederick
Sorensen, R.


Hoffman, p. C.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Stamford, Thomas W.


Hollins, A.
Morley, Ralph
Stephen, Campbell


Hopkin, Daniel
Mort, D. L.
Strauss, G. R.


Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Muff, G.
Sullivan, J.


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Muggerldge, H. T.
Sutton, J. E.


Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Murnin, Hugh
Taylor, R. A, (Lincoln)


Jones. Morgan (Caerphilly)
Naylor, T. E.
Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)


Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Noel Baker, P. J.
Thorne, W. (West Ham. Plaistow)


Kelly, W. T.
Oldfield, J. R.
Thurtle, Ernest


Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Tinker, John Joseph


Kirkwood, D.
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Toole. Joseph


Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Palin, John Henry
Townend, A. E.


Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)
Paling, Wilfrid
Vaughan, David


Law, Albert (Bolton)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)
Viant, S. P.


Law, A. (Ronendale)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Walkden, A. G.


Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Phillips, Dr. Marion
Walker, J.


Lawson, John James
Potts, John S.
Wallace, H. W.


Lawther W. (Barnard Castle)
Price, M. P.
Wellock, W Hired


Leach. W.
Quibell, D. J. K.
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Westwood, Joseph


Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Raynes, W. R.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Lees, J.
Richards, R.
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Leonard, W.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Lindley, Fred W.
Ritson. J.
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)


Lloyd, C. Ellis
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Logan, David Gilbert
Romerll, H. G.
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Longden, F.
Rosbotham. D. S. T.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Lunn, William
Rowson, Guy
Winterton, G. E.(Lelcester, Loughb'gh)


Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Wise, E. F.


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Sanders, W. S.



McElwee, A.
Sandham, E.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


McEntee, V. L.
Sawyer, G. F.
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.




T. Henderson.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Frece, Sir Walter de


Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbastan)
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.


Albery, Irving James
Christie, J. A.
Galbraith, J. F. W.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Clydesdale. Marquess of
Ganzonl, Sir John


Astor, Maj. Hon. John J.(Kent, Dover)
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Gault, Lieut. Col. A. Hamilton


Astor, Viscountess
Colfox, Major William Philip
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Athoil, Duchess of
Colman, N. C. D.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.


Balfour. Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Colville, Major D. J.
Gower, Sir Robert


Balniel. Lord
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Greene, W. P. Crawford


Beaumont, M. W.
Crichton-stuart. Lord C.
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Crookshank, Capt. H. C.
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Betterton, Sir Henry B.
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.


Bevan, S. J. (Holborn)
Cunlifle-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Bird, Ernest Roy
Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey
Hartington, Marquess of


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft.
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertlord)
Harvey, Major s. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Boyce, Leslie
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Haslam, Henry C.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Dawson, Sir Philip
Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxl'd. Henley)


Briscoe, Richard George
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur p.


Broadbent, Colonel J.
Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.


Buchan, John
Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Eden, Captain Anthony
Home, Rt. Hon. Sir Robart S.


Bullock, Captain Malcolm
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.


Butler, R. A.
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Hurd. Percy A.


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
Inskip, Sir Thomas


Campbell, E. T.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Kindersley, Major G. M.


Carver, Major W. H.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Knox, Sir Alfred


Cayzer, Maj Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)
Ferguson, Sir John
Lamb, Sir J. Q.


Chadwick, Capt. Sir Robert Burton
Fielden, E. B
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.




Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch't'sy)
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)
Thomson, Sir F.


Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell
Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.


Lockwood, Captain J. H.
Ross, Ronald D.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Long, Major Hon. Eric
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E.
Todd, Capt. A. J.


Lymington, Viscount
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Salmon, Major I.
Turton, Robert Hugh


Margesson, Captain H. D.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)


Milne, Wardlaw-, J. S.
Savery, S. S.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome
Warrender, Sir Victor


Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)
Skelton, A. N.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Wayland, Sir William A.


Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)
Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Wells, Sydney R.


Muirhead, A. J.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Nali-Caln, A. R. N.
Smithers, Waldron
Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U)


Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G.(Ptrsf'ld)
Somerset, Thomas
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Ormsby Gore, Rt. Hon. William
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Peake, Capt. Osbert
Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Womersley, W. J.


Penny, Sir George
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavist'k)


Perkins, W. R. D.
Stanley, Hon. D. (Westmorland)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton


Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur



Ramsbotham, H.
Stewart, W. J. (Belfast South)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.


Remer, John R
Stuart. Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Captain Sir George Bowyer and


Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.
Captain Austin Hudson.


Reynolds, Col. Sir James
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.



Bill read the Third time, and passed.

RIGHTS OF RAILWAY PASSENGERS BILL.

Read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Tuesday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Two Minutes before One o'Clock.